4.3 Review

Genetic Basis of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes in Africans: Impact on Precision Medicine

期刊

CURRENT DIABETES REPORTS
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

CURRENT MEDICINE GROUP
DOI: 10.1007/s11892-019-1215-5

关键词

Type 2 diabetes; Obesity; Genome-wide association studies; Genetic risk score; Precision medicine; Africa

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute in the Center for Research in Genomics and Global Health (CRGGH) [Z01HG200362]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  3. Center for Information Technology
  4. Office of the Director at the National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of Review Recent advances in genomics provide opportunities for novel understanding of the biology of human traits with the goal of improving human health. Here, we review recent obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D)-related genomic studies in African populations and discuss the implications of limited genomics studies on health disparity and precision medicine. Recent Findings Genome-wide association studies in Africans have yielded genetic discovery that would otherwise not be possible; these include identification of novel loci associated with obesity (SEMA-4D, PRKCA, WARS2), metabolic syndrome (CA-10, CTNNA3), and T2D (AGMO, ZRANB3). ZRANB3 was recently demonstrated to influence beta cell mass and insulin response. Despite these promising results, genomic studies in African populations are still limited and thus genomics tools and approaches such as polygenic risk scores and precision medicine are likely to have limited utility in Africans with the unacceptable possibility of exacerbating prevailing health disparities. African populations provide unique opportunities for increasing our understanding of the genetic basis of cardiometabolic disorders. We highlight the need for more coordinated and sustained efforts to increase the representation of Africans in genomic studies both as participants and scientists.

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

4.3
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