4.5 Article

Sex differences in the genetic architecture of susceptibility to Cryptococcus neoformans pulmonary infection

期刊

GENES AND IMMUNITY
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 536-545

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gene.2008.48

关键词

Cryptococcus neoformans; mouse model; complex trait; QTL

资金

  1. Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Canada Research Chair
  4. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  5. Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems
  6. Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence Program
  7. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryptococcus neoformans is a major cause of fungal pneumonia, meningitis and disseminated disease in the immune compromised host. Here we have used a clinically relevant model to investigate the genetic determinants of susceptibility to progressive cryptococcal pneumonia in C57BL/6J and CBA/J inbred mice. At 5 weeks after infection, the lung fungal burden was over 1000-fold higher in C57BL/6J compared to CBA/J mice. A genome-wide scan performed on 210 male and 203 female (CBA/J x C57BL/6J) F2 progeny using lung colony-forming units as a quantitative trait revealed a sex difference in genetic architecture with three loci (designated Cnes1-Cnes3) associated with susceptibility to cryptococcal pneumonia. Single locus analysis identified significant loci on chromosomes 3 (Cnes1) and 17 (Cnes2) with logarithm of the odds (LOD) scores of 4.09 (P = 0.0110) and 7.30 (P < 0.0001) that explained 8.9 and 15.9% of the phenotypic variance, respectively, in female CBAB6F2 and one significant locus on chromosome 17 (Cnes3) with a LOD score of 4.04 (P = 0.010) that explained 8.6% of the phenotypic variance in male CBAB6F2 mice. Genome-wide pair-wise analysis revealed significant quantitative trait locus interactions in both the female and male CBAB6F2 progeny that collectively explained 43.8 and 19.5% of phenotypic variance in each sex, respectively.

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