4.4 Article

Different prevalence of T2DM risk alleles in Roma population in comparison with the majority Czech population

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.1361

关键词

Czech population; gene score; polymorphism; Roma population; T2DM

资金

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [NV18-01-00046]
  2. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports within COST (Cooperation On Scientific and Technical Research), entitled Obesity and overweight in the Romany minority in the Region of South Bohemia [LD14114]
  3. Ministry of Health Czech Republic - conceptual development of research organization (Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine - IKEM) [IN 00023001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The Czech governmental study suggests up to a 25% higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Roma population than within the majority population. It is not known whether and to what extent these differences have a genetic background. Methods To analyze whether the frequencies of the alleles/genotypes of theFTO,TCF7L2,CDKN2A/2B,MAEA,TLE4,IGF2BP2,ARAP1,andKCNJ11genes differ between the two major ethnic groups in the Czech Republic, we examined them in DNA samples from 302 Roma individuals and 298 Czech individuals. Results Compared to the majority population, Roma are more likely to carry risk alleles in theFTO(26% vs. 16% GG homozygotes,p < .01),IGF2BP2(22% vs. 10% TT homozygotes,p < .0001),ARAP1(98% vs. 95% of A allele carriers,p < .005), andCDKN2A/2B(81% vs. 66% of TT homozygotes,p < .001) genes; however, less frequently they are carriers of theTCF7L2risk allele (34% vs. 48% of the T allelep < .0005). Finally, we found significant accumulation of T2DM-associated alleles between the Roma population in comparison with the majority population (25.4% vs. 15.2% of the carriers of at least 12 risk alleles;p < .0001). Conclusion The increased prevalence of T2DM in the Roma population may have a background in different frequencies of the risk alleles of genes associated with T2DM development.

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