| Literature DB >> 26795600 |
Hélène Choquet1, Eliana Trapani2, Luca Goitre2, Lorenza Trabalzini3, Amy Akers4, Marco Fontanella5, Blaine L Hart6, Leslie A Morrison7, Ludmila Pawlikowska8, Helen Kim9, Saverio Francesco Retta10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Familial Cerebral Cavernous Malformation type 1 (CCM1) is an autosomal dominant disease caused by mutations in the Krev Interaction Trapped 1 (KRIT1/CCM1) gene, and characterized by multiple brain lesions. CCM lesions manifest across a range of different phenotypes, including wide differences in lesion number, size and susceptibility to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Oxidative stress plays an important role in cerebrovascular disease pathogenesis, raising the possibility that inter-individual variability in genes related to oxidative stress may contribute to the phenotypic differences observed in CCM1 disease. Here, we investigated whether candidate oxidative stress-related cytochrome P450 (CYP) and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) genetic markers grouped by superfamilies, families or genes, or analyzed individually influence the severity of CCM1 disease.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral Cavernous Malformation (CCM); Cerebrovascular disease; Cytochrome P450 (CYP); Disease severity; Familial Cerebral Cavernous Malformation type 1; Free radicals; Genetic markers set association study; Inter-individual variability in disease susceptibility and outcome; Intracerebral hemorrhage; KRIT1/CCM1; Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP); Oxidative stress; Reactive oxygen species (ROS); Vascular brain lesions
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26795600 PMCID: PMC4774945 DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.01.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Free Radic Biol Med ISSN: 0891-5849 Impact factor: 7.376
Association of CYP or MMP superfamilies and families with phenotypic markers of CCM1 disease severity.
| 765 | 0.057 | 0.088 | 0.33 | ||
| Families | CYP1 | 16 | 1 | 0.069 | 1 |
| CYP2 | 176 | 0.079 | 0.24 | 0.84 | |
| CYP3 | 39 | 0.15 | 0.61 | 0.32 | |
| CYP4 | 169 | 0.10 | 0.21 | ||
| CYP5 | 80 | 0.60 | 0.058 | 0.56 | |
| CYP7 | 21 | 1 | 0.24 | 0.078 | |
| CYP8 | 47 | 0.10 | 0.61 | ||
| CYP11 | 29 | 0.14 | 1 | 1 | |
| CYP17 | 5 | 0.082 | 1 | 1 | |
| CYP19 | 51 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.035 | |
| CYP20 | 11 | 0.22 | 1 | 1 | |
| CYP21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| CYP24 | 27 | 0.045 | 0.32 | 0.24 | |
| CYP26 | 25 | 1 | 0.062 | 1 | |
| CYP27 | 24 | 0.052 | 0.16 | 0.044 | |
| CYP39 | 21 | 0.40 | 0.56 | 1 | |
| CYP46 | 19 | 0.099 | 0.17 | ||
| CYP51 | 4 | 0.041 | 1 | 1 | |
| 357 | 0.33 | 0.54 | 0.37 | ||
| Families | Collagenases | 45 | 0.74 | 0.61 | 0.47 |
| Gelatinases | 47 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 1 | |
| Stromelysins | 41 | 0.63 | 1 | ||
| Matrilysins | 24 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.34 | |
| Membrane-type MMPs | 141 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.52 | |
| Other MMPs | 59 | 0.17 | 0.73 | 1 | |
P-values are corrected for the multiple markers within a set (taking account of the LD between these genetic markers).
P-values in bold are considered statistically significant (P≤0.017).
CYP or MMP families associated with phenotypic markers of CCM1 disease severity and association of related genes.
| 169 | 0.10 | 0.21 | |||
| Genes | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 12 | 1 | 0.26 | 1 | ||
| 13 | 0.027 | 0.16 | |||
| 18 | 1 | 0.21 | 1 | ||
| 11 | 0.021 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 19 | 0.098 | 0.041 | 0.044 | ||
| 28 | 0.086 | 0.030 | 0.16 | ||
| 17 | 0.11 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 25 | 0.34 | 1 | 0.35 | ||
| 10 | 0.19 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 5 | 0.039 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 47 | 0.10 | 0.61 | |||
| Genes | 39 | 0.12 | 0.56 | ||
| 8 | 1 | 0.079 | 1 | ||
| 51 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.035 | ||
| 27 | 0.045 | 0.32 | 0.24 | ||
| 24 | 0.052 | 0.16 | 0.044 | ||
| Genes | 11 | 1 | 0.036 | 0.041 | |
| 4 | 0.032 | 0.099 | 1 | ||
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 19 | 0.099 | 0.17 | |||
| 4 | 0.041 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 41 | 0.63 | 1 | |||
| Genes | 7 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 19 | 0.39 | 1 | 0.062 | ||
| 7 | 0.17 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
P-values are corrected for the multiple markers within a set (taking account of the LD between these genetic markers).
P-values in bold are considered statistically significant (P≤0.017).
SNPs bearing associations of CYP or MMP families and genes with CCM1 disease severity.
| rs3093088 | 0.13 | Upstream | 0.62 | 0.39 | 0.99 | 0.046 | 0.71 | 0.54 | 0.94 | 0.019 | 0.82 | 0.39 | 1.70 | 0.59 | ||
| rs28669833 | 0.14 | Intron | 1.50 | 1.11 | 2.02 | 1.08 | 0.85 | 1.36 | 0.52 | 0.80 | 0.43 | 1.48 | 0.47 | |||
| rs12610962 | 0.46 | 3’UTR | 1.18 | 0.93 | 1.50 | 0.16 | 1.21 | 1.04 | 1.40 | 1.94 | 1.19 | 3.16 | ||||
| rs11085971 | 0.03 | Intron | 0.60 | 0.29 | 1.26 | 0.18 | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.19 | 1.90 | 0.39 | |||
| rs1502924 | 0.11 | Intron | 1.61 | 0.98 | 2.65 | 0.059 | 1.12 | 0.90 | 1.40 | 0.29 | 1.01 | 0.43 | 2.35 | 0.98 | ||
| rs5628 | 0.13 | Synonymous (L256L) | 1.79 | 1.13 | 2.84 | 1.40 | 1.10 | 1.79 | 1.33 | 0.77 | 2.31 | 0.31 | ||||
| rs72727199 | 0.12 | Intron | 0.93 | 0.67 | 1.29 | 0.65 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 1.06 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.60 | |||
| rs11907350 | 0.03 | 3’UTR | 0.33 | 0.11 | 0.99 | 0.048 | 0.71 | 0.34 | 1.47 | 0.35 | 1.23 | 0.27 | 5.69 | 0.79 | ||
| rs645163 | 0.15 | Downstream | 1.02 | 0.69 | 1.50 | 0.92 | 0.75 | 0.62 | 0.92 | 0.35 | 0.16 | 0.76 | ||||
| rs1048691 | 0.33 | Downstream | 0.70 | 0.55 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.77 | 1.13 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.61 | 1.64 | 0.99 | |||
| rs10151332 | 0.46 | Intron | 0.96 | 0.73 | 1.25 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.67 | 0.94 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.79 | ||||
| rs2049900 | 0.07 | Intron | 0.57 | 0.39 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.64 | 1.12 | 0.24 | 0.80 | 0.33 | 1.91 | 0.62 | |||
| rs117153070 | 0.02 | Intron | 0.87 | 0.43 | 1.75 | 0.69 | 1.27 | 0.88 | 1.84 | 0.19 | n/a* | 8.50* | ∞* | |||
Table gives odds ratio (OR) or proportional increase (PI, or decrease if less than 1) in either total or large lesion count, along with 95% confidence intervals as well as P-values.
P-values in bold are considered statistically significant (P≤0.017).
*The OR cannot be determined, because 100% (6/6) of heterozygous carriers have a history of ICH, compared to 70% of patients all without ICH. We show a one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the profile likelihood and a p-value from the likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without the polymorphism. A mixed-effects logistic regression model found no estimated family effect; hence, the model was not adjusted for familial clustering.