Why the study?
Genetic variations may differentially contribute to cardiovascular disease by sex, and DPP-4 may be involved in atherosclerotic disease development.
Are DPP-4 genetic polymorphisms associated with the risk of coronary artery disease in men and women?
Are DPP-4 genetic polymorphisms associated with the risk of coronary artery disease in men and women?
DPP-4 genetic polymorphisms are associated with the risk of coronary artery disease in a gender-specific manner, particularly in Taiwanese women.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, considerable effort has been devoted to identifying genes that contribute to the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). Genetic factors can be used to identify individuals who have additional genetic risks. Genetic variations might contribute to cardiovascular disease differentially in men and women. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) may be involved in the development of atherosclerotic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To examine the associations between genetic variations of DPP-4 in men and women with CAD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this case-control study, blood samples of patients with angiographically documented CAD and of those without CAD were collected. We focused on the DPP-4 gene (rs7608798 and rs3788979 polymorphisms) to assess the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and the risk of CAD. RESULTS: We identified 1 SNP (rs3788979) that was significantly related to angiographic CAD in women (odds ratio (OR) = 2.437; p = 0.019). Moreover, the SNP (rs7608798) seemed to have a protective effect (OR = 0.291; p = 0.032). We did not find an association between CAD risk factors and DPP-4 polymorphisms. Our study is the first to demonstrate that CAD pathogenesis is influenced by gender differences in polymorphisms in the DPP-4 gene. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new information on the association of DPP-4 polymorphisms with the risk of CAD in the Taiwanese population, especially in women. Further studies should be performed to verify this association.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: