4.5 Article

Variants and Haplotypes in Angiotensinogen Gene Are Associated With Plasmatic Angiotensinogen Level in Mexican Population

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 342, 期 3, 页码 205-211

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182121020

关键词

Angiotensinogen gene; Genetics; Haplotypes; Polymorphism; Plasma angiotensinogen

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK072408-01A1, R01 DK072408] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The plasmatic angiotensinogen (AGT) level has been associated with essential hypertension. Linkage analysis has found a relationship between the AGT gene locus and hypertension in the Mexican-American population, but studies have failed to identify genetic variants associated with hypertension or plasma AGT levels. This study analyzes the relationship between polymorphisms in the AGT gene and plasmatic AGT levels in Mexican population. Methods: Nine polymorphisms in AGT gene were geno-typed, and plasma AGT level was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: Differences in AGT plasma levels were associated with 2 polymorphisms: T-20G, TT = 25.3 +/- 8.3 versus TG + GG = 21.6 +/- 8.8 mu g/mL; P = 0.008 and C3389T (T174M), CC = 25.8 +/- 9.9 versus TC + TT = 20.5 +/- 5.4 mu g/mL; P = 0.0002. Haplotype 2 was associated with low plasma AGT (-5.1 mu g/mL [95% confidence interval: -8.6 to -1.6], P = 0.004) and Haplotype 8 was associated with high plasma AGT (6.5 mu g/mL [95% confidence interval: 2.5 to 10.6], P = 0.001). This association remained after adjustment for covariates. A Likelihood Ratio Test for haplotype-phenotype association adjusted for covariates resulted in chi(2) = 38.9, P = 0.0005. The total effect of the haplotypes on plasma AGT level variance was 19.5%. No association was identified between haplotypes and quantitative traits of blood pressure. Conclusions: Two polymorphisms (T-20G and C3389T) and 2 haplotypes (H2 and H8) showed an association with plasma AGT levels in Mexican population.

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

4.5
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