4.7 Article

An RBP4 promoter polymorphism increases risk of type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 1423-1428

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-008-1042-8

关键词

polymorphism; RBP4; retinol; type 2 diabetes; vitamin A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis Retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4), originally known for retinol transport, was recently identified as an adipokine affecting insulin resistance. The RBP4 -803GA promoter polymorphism influences binding of hepatic nuclear factor la and is associated with type 2 diabetes in case-control studies. We hypothesised that the RBP4 -803GA polymorphism increases type 2 diabetes risk at a population-based level. In addition, information on retinol intake and plasma vitamin A levels enabled us to explore the possible underlying mechanism. Methods In the Rotterdam Study, a prospective, population-based, follow-up study, the -803GA polymorphism was genotyped. In Cox proportional hazards models, associations of the -803GA polymorphism and retinol intake with type 2 diabetes risk were examined. Moreover, the interaction of the polymorphism with retinol intake on type 2 diabetes risk was assessed. In a subgroup of participants the association of the polymorphism and vitamin A plasma levels was investigated. Results Homozygous carriers of the -803A allele had increased risk of type 2 diabetes (HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.26-2.66). Retinol intake was not associated with type 2 diabetes risk and showed no interaction with the RBP4 -803GA polymorphism. Furthermore, there was no significant association of the polymorphism with plasma vitamin A levels. Conclusions/interpretation Our results provide evidence that homozygosity for the RBP4 -803A allele is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes in the Rotterdam population. This relationship was not clearly explained by retinol intake and vitamin A plasma levels. Therefore, we cannot differentiate between a retinol-dependent or -independent mechanism of this RBP4 variant.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据