4.5 Article

Weak association of glyoxalase 1 (GLO1) variants with autism spectrum disorder

期刊

EUROPEAN CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 75-82

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-014-0537-8

关键词

ASD; Association study; Genetics; Glyoxalase 1; Methylglyoxal

资金

  1. Slovenian National Research Agency [J3-2412, P3-0343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was recently estimated to 1 in 88 children by the CDC MMWR. In up to 25 % of the cases, the genetic cause can be identified. Past studies identified increased level of advanced glycation end products (AGE) in the brain samples of ASD patients. The methylglyoxal (MG) is one of the main precursors for AGE formation. Humans developed effective mechanism of the MG metabolism involving two enzymes glyoxalase 1 (GLO1) and hydroxyacylglutathione hydrolase (HAGH). Our aim was to analyse genetic variants of GLO1 and HAGH in population of 143 paediatric participants with ASD. We detected 7 genetic variants in GLO1 and 16 variants in HAGH using high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis. A novel association between variant rs1049346 and ASD [OR ((allele C))] = 1.5; 95 % CI = 1.1-2.2 and p < 0.05) was identified, and weak association between ASD and variant rs2736654 [OR ((allele A))] = 2.2; 95 % CI = 0.99-4.9; p = 0.045) was confirmed. Additionally, a novel genetic variant (GLO1 c.484G > A, p.Ala161Thr) with predicted potentially damaging effect on the activity of the glyoxalase 1 that may contribute to the aetiology of ASD was identified in one participant with ASD. No association between genetic variants of the HAGH gene and ASD was found. Increased level of MG and, consequently, AGEs can induce oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and inflammation all of which have been implicated to act in the aetiology of the ASD. Our results indicate potential importance of MG metabolism in ASD. However, these results must be interpreted with caution until a causative relation is demonstrated.

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

4.5
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