4.6 Article

Investigating the modulation of genetic effects on late AMD by age and sex: Lessons learned and two additional loci

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194321

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBF 01ER1206, BMBF 01ER1507, BMBF 01GP1308]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Late-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of visual impairment in the elderly with a complex etiology.The most important non-modifiable risk factors for onset and progression of late AMD are age and genetic risk factors, however, little is known about the interplay between genetics and age or sex. Here, we conducted a large-scale age-and sex-stratified genome-wide association study (GWAS) using 1000 Genomes imputed genome-wide and ExomeChip data (>12 million variants). The data were established by the International Age-related Macular Degeneration Genomics Consortium (IAMDGC) from 16,144 late AMD cases and 17,832 controls. Our systematic search for interaction effects yielded significantly stronger effects among younger individuals at two known AMD loci (near CFH and ARMS2/HTRA1). Accounting for age and gene-age interaction using a joint test identified two additional AMD loci compared to the previous main effect scan. One of these two is a novel AMD GWAS locus, near the retinal clusterin-like protein (CLUL1) gene, and the other, near the retinaldehyde binding protein 1 (RLBP1), was recently identified in a joint analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial variants. Despite considerable power in our data, neither sex-dependent effects nor effects with opposite directions between younger and older individuals were observed. This is the first genome-wide interaction study to incorporate age, sex and their interaction with genetic effects for late AMD. Results diminish the potential for a role of sex in the etiology of late AMD yet highlight the importance and existence of age-dependent genetic effects.

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

4.6
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