4.5 Article

Analysis of genes coding for CD46, CD55, and C4b-binding protein in patients with idiopathic, recurrent, spontaneous pregnancy loss

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 1617-1629

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eji.201243196

关键词

Complement inhibitor; Complement system; Mutation; Reproductive immunology

资金

  1. Soderberg Foundation
  2. Swedish Research Council [K2012-66X-14928-09-5]
  3. National Board of Health and Welfare
  4. Skane University Hospital
  5. Foundation of Osterlund
  6. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM099111-17]
  7. Foundation of Greta and Johan Kock
  8. Foundation of Knut and Alice Wallenberg
  9. Foundation of Inga-Britt and Arne Lundberg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since a tightly regulated complement system is needed for a successful pregnancy, we hypothesized that alterations in complement inhibitors may be associated with idiopathic, recurrent miscarriage. We sequenced all exons coding for three complement inhibitors: C4b-binding protein (C4BP), CD46, and CD55 in 384 childless women with at least two miscarriages that could not be explained by known risk factors. Several alterations were found in C4BPA, of which the R120H, I126T, and the G423T mutations affected the expression level and/or the ability of recombinant C4BP to serve as cofactor for factor I. The only variant in C4BPB was located in the C-terminal part, and did not impair the polymerization of the molecule. Our results identify for the first time alterations in C4BP in women experiencing recurrent miscarriages. We also found four CD46 alterations in individual patients that were not found in healthy controls. One of the rare variants, P324L, showed decreased expression, whereas N213I resulted in deficient protein processing as well as an impaired cofactor activity in the degradation of both C4b and C3b. The identified alterations may result in in vivo consequences and contribute to the disorder but the degree of association must be evaluated in larger cohorts.

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