Why the study?
Is the ISL1 common variant rs1017 associated with susceptibility to sporadic congenital heart disease in a Chinese population?
Is the ISL1 common variant rs1017 associated with susceptibility to sporadic congenital heart disease in a Chinese population?
The ISL1 common variant rs1017 does not appear to influence susceptibility to sporadic congenital heart disease in the Chinese population, contrasting with previous findings in white and black/African American populations.
No association of ISL1 rs1017 with CHD risk in Chinese patients; challenges trans-ethnic generalizability of prior positive reports.
BACKGROUND: ISL1, as a member of the LIM homeodomain transcription factor family, is expressed in a distinct population of undifferentiated cardiac progenitors and plays a pivotal role in cardiogenesis. Lacking ISL1 expression results in growth arrest or displays profound defects in heart development, including atria, ventricle, and the inflow and outflow tracts, which constitute a major form of congenital heart disease (CHD). Recently, an important study by Stevens et al. found that genetic variation in ISL1 is associated with risk of CHD in white and black/African American populations; this observation led us to hypothesize that ISL1 common variants might influence susceptibility to sporadic CHD in our Chinese population. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of CHD in Chinese to test our hypothesis by genotyping ISL1 common variant rs1017 in 1003 CHD cases and 1012 non-CHD controls. RESULTS: We found that rs1017 was not associated with the risk of CHD (p=0.213). When we performed stratified analyses according to subjects' age, sex, and CHD classifications, we found no overall heterogeneity of risk in different subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study which indicates that ISL1 common variant rs1017 may not play a role in sporadic CHD susceptibility in the Chinese population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xue et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: