4.2 Review

Identifying genes for primary hypertension: methodological limitations and gene-environment interactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 227-237

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2008.134

关键词

genetics; primary hypertension; gene-environment interaction; genome-wide association study; lifestyle

资金

  1. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation
  2. Swedish Diabetes Association and Vasterbottens Health Authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertension segregates within families, indicating that genetic factors explain some of the variance in the risk of developing the disease; however, even with major advances in genotyping technologies facilitating the discovery of multiple genetic risk markers for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, little progress has been made in defining the genetic defects that cause elevations in blood pressure. Several plausible explanations exist for this apparent paradox, one of which is that the risk conveyed by genes involved in the development of hypertension is context dependent. This notion is supported by a growing number of published animal and human studies, although none has yet provided unequivocal evidence that genetic and environmental factors interact to influence the risk of primary hypertension in humans. In this review, an assumption is made that common genetic variation contributes meaningfully to the development of primary hypertension. The review focuses on (i) several methodological limitations of genetic association studies and (ii) the roles that gene environment interactions might play in the development of primary hypertension. The proceeding sections of the review examine the design features necessary for future studies to adequately test the hypothesis that genes for primary hypertension act in a context-dependent manner. Finally, an outline of how knowledge of gene-environment interactions might be used to optimize the prevention or treatment of primary hypertension is provided.

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

4.2
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