4.1 Article

Genetic susceptibility to severe asthma with fungal sensitization

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMMUNOGENETICS
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 93-106

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iji.12312

Keywords

allergy; asthma; disease association; disease association studies; genetics; polymorphism

Funding

  1. European Union [HEALTH-2010-260338]
  2. National Aspergillosis Centre, Medical Research Council [MR/M02010X/1]
  3. Fungal Infection Trust
  4. JP Moulton Charitable Foundation
  5. North West Lung Centre Charity
  6. National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Facility at University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Severe asthma is problematic and its pathogenesis poorly understood. Fungal sensitization is common, and many patients with severe asthma with fungal sensitization (SAFS), used to denote this subgroup of asthma, respond to antifungal therapy. We have investigated 325 haplotype-tagging SNPs in 22 candidate genes previously associated with aspergillosis in patients with SAFS, with comparisons in atopic asthmatics and healthy control patients, of whom 47 SAFS, 279 healthy and 152 atopic asthmatic subjects were genotyped successfully. Significant associations with SAFS compared with atopic asthma included Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) (p=.009), TLR9 (p=.025), C-type lectin domain family seven member A (dectin-1) (p=.043), interleukin-10 (IL-10) (p=.0010), mannose-binding lectin (MBL2) (p=.007), CC-chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2) (2 SNPs, p=.025 and .041), CCL17 (p=.002), plasminogen (p=.049) and adenosine A2a receptor (p=.024). These associations differ from those found in ABPA in asthma, indicative of contrasting disease processes. Additional and broader genetic association studies in SAFS, combined with experimental work, are likely to contribute to our understanding of different phenotypes of problematic asthma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available