4.4 Article

Cluster of differentiation 36 gene polymorphism (rs1761667) is associated with dietary MUFA intake and hypertension in a Japanese population

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 121, Issue 11, Pages 1215-1222

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114519000679

Keywords

CD36; Blood pressure; Fatty acids; Single nucleotide polymorphisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cluster of differentiation 36 (CD36) is a membrane receptor expressed on a wide variety of human cells. CD36 polymorphisms are reportedly associated with oral fat perception, dietary intake and metabolic disorders. The present study examined associations of two CD36 polymorphisms (rs1761667 and rs1527483) and dietary fat intake, and metabolic phenotypes in a Japanese population. This cross-sectional study was conducted based on clinical information collected from health check-ups in Japan (n 495). Dietary nutrient intake was estimated from a validated short FFQ and adjusted for total energy intake using the residual method. Mean blood pressure was calculated from systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Hypertension was defined as SBP >= 130 mmHg and/or DBP >= 85 mmHg, or use of antihypertensive drugs. Genotyping was performed using PCR with confronting two-pair primers method. Mean age was 63 center dot 4 (sd 9 center dot 9) years. Individuals with the AA genotype showed higher total fat and MUFA intake (standardised beta = 0 center dot 110 and 0 center dot 087, P = 0 center dot 01 and 0 center dot 05, respectively) compared with the GG and GA genotypes. For metabolic phenotypes, the AA genotype of rs1761667 had a lower blood pressure compared with the GG genotype (standardised beta = -0 center dot 123, P = 0 center dot 02). Our results suggested that the AA genotype of rs1761667 in the CD36 gene was associated with higher intake of total fat and MUFA and lower risk of hypertension in a Japanese population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available