4.4 Article

An exploratory study of the association of adrenergic and serotonergic genotype and gastrointestinal motor functions

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 213-219

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2007.01026.x

关键词

accommodation; gastric emptying; genetic association; GN beta(3)

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR024150] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01-DK-54681, R01-DK-02638] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adrenergic and serotonergic mechanisms alter human gut motor functions. Genotype variation influences phenotype. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that variation in genes that control these functions is associated with gastrointestinal (GI) motor functions in humans with functional GI disorders (FGID). A database of 251 people was assembled by combining genotype data with measurements of gut transit and gastric volumes. Genetic variations evaluated were: alpha(2A) adrenergic (C-1291G), alpha(2C) (Del 332-325), 5-HT transporter (SLC6A4) and GN beta 3 (C825T). We sought associations between motor function or disease groups and genotypes, adjusting for age, gender and body mass index. Among 251 participants, 82 were healthy, 20 with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with mixed bowel habit, 49 with constipation-predominant IBS, 67 with diarrhoea-predominant IBS and 33 with functional dyspepsia. For all candidate genes, there was no significant association between motor function and wildtype vs non-wildtype gene status. There were significant interactions between genotype and motility phenotype, specifically GN beta 3 and alpha(2A) and gastric emptying at 4 h. Borderline associations were noted for SCL6A4 and alpha(2A) and postprandial gastric volume, and for alpha(2C) and gastric emptying at 2 h. We conclude that genotype variation may affect gastric motor functions in different FGID phenotypes. However, these candidate genes account for only a limited amount of the variance in gastric function of patients with FGID.

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

4.4
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