4.6 Editorial Material

RANTES/CCL5 gene polymorphisms, serum concentrations, and incident type 2 diabetes:: results from the MONICA/KORA Augsburg case-cohort study, 1984-2002

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 158, 期 5, 页码 R1-R5

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-07-0686

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted (RANTES)/chemokine(C-C motif) ligand (CCL5) is expressed by adipocytes, and serum levels of RANTE'S arc increased in obesity and type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that RANTES is involved in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes by analyzing the triangular association between CCL5 gene polymorphisms, systemic RANTES concentrations, and incident type 2 diabetes in a large prospective study. Subjects and methods: The study is based on 502 individuals (293 men and 209 women) and 1632 individuals (859 men and 773 women) with and without incident type 2 diabetes from the population based MONItoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease (MONICA)/Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg (KORA) case-cohort study respectively (mean follow-up time +/- S.D. 10.1 +/- 4.9 years). CCL5 genotypes and RANTES serum concentrations were determined and associations between genotypes, haplotypes, serum levels, and incident type 2 diabetes were assessed. Results: Minor alleles of four single nucleotide polymorphisms were associated with lower RANTES levels (P-additive between 1.2 x 10(-9) and 3.1 x 10(-8)), but neither genotypes, haplotypes, nor serum levels were associated with incident type 2 diabetes. Conclusions: Our data suggest that RANTES/CCL5 gene variants and serum levels are not causally related with type 2 diabetes and that elevated RANTES levels in patients with type 2 diabetes may be a consequence of hyperglycemia. However, our findings cannot preclude a local role in adipose tissue where RANTES expression may contribute to leukocyte infiltration and a proinflammatory state.

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

4.6
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