4.5 Article

Multiple sclerosis susceptibility loci do not alter clinical and MRI outcomes in clinically isolated syndrome

期刊

GENES AND IMMUNITY
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 244-248

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gene.2013.17

关键词

multiple sclerosis; susceptibility; prognosis; genotype; phenotype; MRI

资金

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia
  2. Tibotec Therapeutics/Johnson Johnson
  3. Teva
  4. Biogen Idec
  5. Merck Serono
  6. Novartis
  7. Genzyme and Teva
  8. Czech Ministries of Education and Health [NT13237-4/2012, MSM 0021620849, PRVOUK-P26/LF1/4, RVO-VFN64165/2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has not yet been established whether genetic predictors of multiple sclerosis (MS) susceptibility also influence disease severity and accumulation of disability. Our aim was to evaluate associations between 16 previously validated genetic susceptibility markers and MS phenotype. Patients with clinically isolated syndrome verified by positive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cerebrospinal fluid findings (n = 179) were treated with interferon-beta. Disability and volumetric MRI parameters were evaluated regularly for 2 years. Sixteen single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously validated as predictors of MS susceptibility in our cohort and their combined weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) were tested for associations with clinical (conversion to MS, relapses and disability) and MRI disease outcomes (whole brain, grey matter and white matter volumes, corpus callosum cross-sectional area, brain parenchymal fraction, T2 and T1 lesion volumes) 2 years from disease onset using mixed-effect models. We have found no associations between the tested SNPs and the clinical or MRI outcomes. Neither the combined wGRS predicted MS activity and progression over 2-year follow-up period. Power analyses confirmed 90% power to identify clinically relevant changes in all outcome variables. We conclude that the most important MS susceptibility loci do not determine MS phenotype and disease outcomes.

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