4.1 Article

ABO Blood Groups and Genetic Risk Factors for Thrombosis in Croatian Population

期刊

CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 550-558

出版社

MEDICINSKA NAKLADA
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.550

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To assess the association between ABO blood group genotypes and genetic risk factors for thrombosis (FV Leiden, prothrombin G20210A, and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T mutations) in the Croatian population and to determine whether genetic predisposition to thrombotic risk is higher in non-OO blood group genotypes than in OO blood group genotypes. Methods The study included 154 patients with thrombosis and 200 asymptomatic blood donors as a control group. Genotyping to 5 common alleles of ABO blood groups was performed by polymerase chain reaction with sequence specific primers (PCR-SSP). FV Leiden was determined by PCR-SSP, while prothrombin and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase were determined by PCR and restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Results There was an association between non-OO blood group genotypes and the risk of thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.32-3.27). The strongest association with thrombotic risk was recorded for A(1)B/A(2)B blood group genotypes (OR, 2,73; 95% Cl, 1.10-6.74)B followed by BB/(OB)-B-1/(OB)-B-2 (OR, 2.29; 95% Cl, 1.25-4.21) and O(1)A(1)/O(2)A(1) (OR, 1.95; 95% Cl, 1.15-3.31). FV Leiden increased the risk of thrombosis 31 -fold in the group of OO carriers and fourfold in the group of non-OO carriers. There was no significant difference in the risk of thrombosis between OO and non-OO blood groups associated with prothrombin mutation. Non-OO carriers positive for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase had a 5.7 times greater risk of thrombosis than that recorded in OO carriers negative for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. Conclusion Study results confirmed the association of non-OO blood group genotypes with an increased risk of thrombosis in Croatia.

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

4.1
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