4.6 Review

Genetic Associations with Aging Muscle: A Systematic Review

Journal

CELLS
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9010012

Keywords

genotype; genetic variation; muscle phenotypes; sarcopenia; aging

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The age-related decline in skeletal muscle mass, strength and function known as 'sarcopenia' is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, functional disability and mortality. While skeletal muscle properties are known to be highly heritable, evidence regarding the specific genes underpinning this heritability is currently inconclusive. This review aimed to identify genetic variants known to be associated with muscle phenotypes relevant to sarcopenia. PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched (from January 2004 to March 2019) using pre-defined search terms such as aging, sarcopenia, skeletal muscle, muscle strength and genetic association. Candidate gene association studies and genome wide association studies that examined the genetic association with muscle phenotypes in non-institutionalised adults aged >= 50 years were included. Fifty-four studies were included in the final analysis. Twenty-six genes and 88 DNA polymorphisms were analysed across the 54 studies. The ACTN3, ACE and VDR genes were the most frequently studied, although the IGF1/IGFBP3, TNF alpha, APOE, CNTF/R and UCP2/3 genes were also shown to be significantly associated with muscle phenotypes in two or more studies. Ten DNA polymorphisms (rs154410, rs2228570, rs1800169, rs3093059, rs1800629, rs1815739, rs1799752, rs7412, rs429358 and 192 bp allele) were significantly associated with muscle phenotypes in two or more studies. Through the identification of key gene variants, this review furthers the elucidation of genetic associations with muscle phenotypes associated with sarcopenia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available