PURPOSE: Previously, two cytosolic antioxidant enzymes, Glutathione S-transferase Mu 1 (GSTM1) and Mu 5 (GSTM5), were reduced in retinas with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study compared genomic copy number variations (gCNV) of these two antioxidant enzymes in AMD versus controls. METHODS: Genomic copy number (gCN) assays were performed using Taqman Gene Copy Number Assays (Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany) in technical quadruplicate for both GSTM1 and GSTM5. Peripheral leukocyte RNA levels were compared with controls in technical triplicates. Statistical comparisons were performed in SAS v9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). RESULTS: A large percentage of patients in both AMD and age-matched control groups had no copies of GSTM1 (0/0). The mean gCN of GSTM1 was 1.40 (range 0-4) and 1.61 (range 0-5) for AMD and control, respectively (p = 0.29). A greater percentage of control patients had > 3 gCNs of GSTM1 compared with AMD, respectively (15.3% versus 3.0%, p = 0.004). The gCN of GSTM5 was 2 in all samples except one control sample. The relative quantification of GSTM1 and GSTM5 mRNA from peripheral blood leukocytes in patients showed significant differences in relative expression in AMD versus control (p < 0.05). Peripheral blood leukocyte mRNA and gCN were not significantly correlated (p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Since high copy numbers of GSTM1 are found more frequently in controls than in AMD, it is possible that high copy number leads to increased retinal antioxidant defense. Genomic polymorphisms of GSTM1 and GSTM5 do not significantly affect the peripheral blood leukocyte mRNA levels.
PURPOSE: Previously, two cytosolic antioxidant enzymes, Glutathione S-transferase Mu 1 (GSTM1) and Mu 5 (GSTM5), were reduced in retinas with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study compared genomic copy number variations (gCNV) of these two antioxidant enzymes in AMD versus controls. METHODS: Genomic copy number (gCN) assays were performed using Taqman Gene Copy Number Assays (Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany) in technical quadruplicate for both GSTM1 and GSTM5. Peripheral leukocyte RNA levels were compared with controls in technical triplicates. Statistical comparisons were performed in SAS v9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). RESULTS: A large percentage of patients in both AMD and age-matched control groups had no copies of GSTM1 (0/0). The mean gCN of GSTM1 was 1.40 (range 0-4) and 1.61 (range 0-5) for AMD and control, respectively (p = 0.29). A greater percentage of control patients had > 3 gCNs of GSTM1 compared with AMD, respectively (15.3% versus 3.0%, p = 0.004). The gCN of GSTM5 was 2 in all samples except one control sample. The relative quantification of GSTM1 and GSTM5 mRNA from peripheral blood leukocytes in patients showed significant differences in relative expression in AMD versus control (p < 0.05). Peripheral blood leukocyte mRNA and gCN were not significantly correlated (p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Since high copy numbers of GSTM1 are found more frequently in controls than in AMD, it is possible that high copy number leads to increased retinal antioxidant defense. Genomic polymorphisms of GSTM1 and GSTM5 do not significantly affect the peripheral blood leukocyte mRNA levels.
Authors: John W Crabb; Masaru Miyagi; Xiaorong Gu; Karen Shadrach; Karen A West; Hirokazu Sakaguchi; Motohiro Kamei; Azeem Hasan; Lin Yan; Mary E Rayborn; Robert G Salomon; Joe G Hollyfield Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-10-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: M G Nicolas; K Fujiki; K Murayama; M T Suzuki; N Shindo; Y Hotta; F Iwata; T Fujimura; Y Yoshikawa; F Cho; A Kanai Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Britney L Grayson; Mary Ellen Smith; James W Thomas; Lily Wang; Phil Dexheimer; Joy Jeffrey; Pamela R Fain; Priyaanka Nanduri; George S Eisenbarth; Thomas M Aune Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey M Kidd; Gregory M Cooper; William F Donahue; Hillary S Hayden; Nick Sampas; Tina Graves; Nancy Hansen; Brian Teague; Can Alkan; Francesca Antonacci; Eric Haugen; Troy Zerr; N Alice Yamada; Peter Tsang; Tera L Newman; Eray Tüzün; Ze Cheng; Heather M Ebling; Nadeem Tusneem; Robert David; Will Gillett; Karen A Phelps; Molly Weaver; David Saranga; Adrianne Brand; Wei Tao; Erik Gustafson; Kevin McKernan; Lin Chen; Maika Malig; Joshua D Smith; Joshua M Korn; Steven A McCarroll; David A Altshuler; Daniel A Peiffer; Michael Dorschner; John Stamatoyannopoulos; David Schwartz; Deborah A Nickerson; James C Mullikin; Richard K Wilson; Laurakay Bruhn; Maynard V Olson; Rajinder Kaul; Douglas R Smith; Evan E Eichler Journal: Nature Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Anne Senabouth; Maciej Daniszewski; Grace E Lidgerwood; Helena H Liang; Damián Hernández; Mehdi Mirzaei; Stacey N Keenan; Ran Zhang; Xikun Han; Drew Neavin; Louise Rooney; Maria Isabel G Lopez Sanchez; Lerna Gulluyan; Joao A Paulo; Linda Clarke; Lisa S Kearns; Vikkitharan Gnanasambandapillai; Chia-Ling Chan; Uyen Nguyen; Angela M Steinmann; Rachael A McCloy; Nona Farbehi; Vivek K Gupta; David A Mackey; Guy Bylsma; Nitin Verma; Stuart MacGregor; Matthew J Watt; Robyn H Guymer; Joseph E Powell; Alex W Hewitt; Alice Pébay Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Juan Zhang; Yan Li; Juan Zou; Chun-Tian Lai; Tian Zeng; Juan Peng; Wen-da Zou; Bei Cao; Dan Liu; Li-Yu Zhu; Hui Li; Yu-Kun Li Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 5.738