4.5 Article

The rs5743836 polymorphism in TLR9 confers a population-based increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma

期刊

GENES AND IMMUNITY
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 197-201

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gene.2011.59

关键词

toll-like receptors; non-Hodgkin lymphoma; single nucleotide polymorphism; TLR9

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Portugal [PIC/IC/83313/2007]
  2. Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, Servico de Saude e Desenvolvimento Humano, Portugal [Proc/60666-MM/734]
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [CA122663, CA104682, CA45614, CA89745]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [2021.05918.BD, PIC/IC/83313/2007] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) has been associated with immunological defects, chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Given the link between immune dysfunction and NHL, genetic variants in toll-like receptors (TLRs) have been regarded as potential predictive factors of susceptibility to NHL. Adequate anti-tumoral responses are known to depend on TLR9 function, such that the use of its synthetic ligand is being targeted as a therapeutic strategy. We investigated the association between the functional rs5743836 polymorphism in the TLR9 promoter and risk for B-cell NHL and its major subtypes in three independent case-control association studies from Portugal (1160 controls, 797 patients), Italy (468 controls, 494 patients) and the US (972 controls, 868 patients). We found that the rs5743836 polymorphism was significantly overtransmitted in both Portuguese (odds ratio (OR), 1.85; P = 7.3E-9) and Italian (OR, 1.84; P = 6.0E=5) and not in the US cohort of NHL patients. Moreover, the increased transcriptional activity of TLR9 in mononuclear cells from patients harboring rs5743836 further supports a functional effect of this polymorphism on NHL susceptibility in a population-dependent manner. Genes and Immunity (2012) 13, 197-201; doi:10.1038/gene.2011.59; published online 25 August 2011

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