| Literature DB >> 29088855 |
Palida Abulizi1, Xiao-Hui Zhou1, Kabinuer Keyimu1, Mei Luo1, Feng-Qing Jin1.
Abstract
The secretive Klotho protein is an anti-aging regulatory hormone that plays a physiological role in many target organs. The present study aims to investigate the correlation between Klotho gene and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Uygur and Han populations in Xinjiang. From July 2008 to April 2014, stratified random multistage cluster sampling was used in combination with the methods of on-site questionnaire and household survey to conduct a cross-sectional MCI investigation on selected Uygur and Han subjects aged over 60 years old in Xinjiang region. 323 Uygur and Han MCI patients were randomly selected and matched with 343 subjects in the normal control group. SNaPshot technique was used to detect the polymorphisms of Klotho gene. A case-control associated analysis was conducted to analyze the genotype and allele frequencies of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the MCI group and the normal control group. The polymorphisms of rs1207568 and rs9536314/rs9527025 loci in Klotho gene were different among MCI populations in Xinjiang, and after group assignments based on ethnic background, the polymorphisms of rs1207568 and rs9536314/rs9527025 loci were associated with the Uygur MCI population and were not relevant to the Han MIC population. The frequencies of mutational alleles of rs9536314/rs9527025 locus in the Uygur population were significantly higher than those in the Han population. The genotype and allele frequencies of rs1207568 locus in the Uygur and Han populations were similar. The polymorphisms of rs1207568 and rs9536314/rs9527025 loci in Klotho gene may be associated with the Uygur MCI population in Xinjiang.Entities:
Keywords: Han nationality; Klotho gene; mild cognitive impairment; uygur nationality
Year: 2017 PMID: 29088855 PMCID: PMC5650410 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.20655
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
The comparison of general characteristics between the MCI group and the Control group
| Indicators | MCI group | Control group (n=343) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 75.12±6.88 | 74.65±6.17 | 0.937 | 0.345 |
| Gender (M/F) | 162/161 | 166/177 | 0.342 | 0.764 |
| Alcohol (n, %) | 60 (18.6) | 66 (19.2) | 0.331 | 0.860 |
| Ethnic (Han/Uigur) | 166/157 | 172/171 | 0.122 | 0.897 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.39±3.89 | 24.11±3.70 | 0.946 | 0.345 |
| WC (cm) | 87.54±11.05 | 87.71±10.75 | -0.085 | 0.933 |
| HC (cm) | 54.74±2.79 | 55.20±1.97 | -2.445 | 0.015 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 137.97±20.15 | 132.95±19.91 | 3.234 | 0.001 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 78.59±11.46 | 78.47±11.23 | 0.138 | 0.890 |
| BG (mmol/l) | 6.10±2.47 | 6.32±2.74 | -0.561 | 0.575 |
| TG (mmol/l) | 2.38±1.57 | 2.11±1.59 | 1.966 | 0.050 |
| TC (mmol/l) | 4.85±1.05 | 4.68±1.09 | 2.475 | 0.014 |
| HDL-C (mmol/l) | 1.21±0.33 | 1.37±0.54 | -4.658 | 0.000 |
| LDL-C(mmol/l) | 2.97±0.79 | 2.66±0.75 | 5.283 | 0.000 |
| 2.50±1.39 | 3.07±1.36 | -5.405 | 0.000 |
Table 1 indicated that there are significant difference between the two groups in Klotho, LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, SBP and HC. (BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; HC: Hip circumference: SBP: Systolic blood pressure; DBP: Diastolic blood pressure; BG: Blood glucose; TG: triglyceride; TC: Total cholesterol; HDL-C: High density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: Low density lipoprotein cholesterol).
Hardy-Weinberg test of the genotype distribution of Klotho genotypes
| Loci | Groups | Number of subjects (n) | SNP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T/T | T/G | G/G | |||||
| rs9536314/ | Uygur population | ||||||
| rs9527025 | MCI group | 166 | Actual | 115 | 43 | 8 | |
| Expected | 112 | 49 | 5 | 0.143 | |||
| Control group | 172 | Actual | 137 | 31 | 4 | ||
| Expected | 135 | 35 | 2 | 0.175 | |||
| Han population | |||||||
| MCI group | 157 | Actual | 157 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Expected | 157 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Control group | 171 | Actual | 167 | 4 | 0 | ||
| Expected | 167 | 4 | 0 | 0.877 | |||
| rs1207568 | Uygur population | SNP | |||||
| G/G | G/A | A/A | |||||
| MCI group | 166 | Actual | 97 | 62 | 7 | ||
| Expected | 99 | 59 | 8 | 0.455 | |||
| Control group | 172 | Actual | 120 | 49 | 3 | ||
| Expected | 121 | 49 | 4 | 0.4278 | |||
| Han population | |||||||
| MCI group | 157 | Actual | 108 | 43 | 6 | ||
| Expected | 107 | 45 | 5 | 0.5134 | |||
| Control group | 171 | Actual | 126 | 43 | 2 | ||
| Expected | 127 | 41 | 3 | 0.4277 | |||
Table 2 showed these two loci were in line with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (all P>0.05).
Genotyping and allele distributions of Klotho in MCI patients and control subjects (n, %)
| MCI group (n=323) | Control group (n=343) | χ2 value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs9536314/ | rs9527025 | ||||
| Genotype | T T | 223 (69.04) | 263 (76.68) | ||
| T G | 86 (26.63) | 74 (21.57) | |||
| G G | 14 (4.33) | 6 (1.75) | 6.798 | 0.033 | |
| Dominant model | T T | 223 (69.04) | 263 (76.68) | ||
| TG+GG | 100 (30.96) | 80 (23.32) | 4.918 | 0.027 | |
| Recessive model | G G | 14 (4.33) | 6 (1.75) | ||
| TT+TG | 309 (95.67) | 337 (98.25) | 3.816 | 0.051 | |
| Additive model | T G | 86 (26.63) | 74 (21.57) | ||
| TT+GG | 237 (73.37) | 269 (78.43) | 2.325 | 0.127 | |
| Allele | T | 532 (82.35) | 600 (87.46) | ||
| G | 114 (17.65) | 86 (12.52) | 6.81 | 0.009 | |
| rs1207568 | |||||
| Genotype | G G | 205 (63.47) | 246 (71.72) | ||
| G A | 106 (32.82) | 92 (26.82) | |||
| A A | 12 (3.72) | 5 (1.46) | 7.005 | 0.030 | |
| Dominant model | G G | 205 (63.47) | 246 (71.72) | ||
| GA+AA | 118 (36.53) | 97 (28.28) | 5.183 | 0.023 | |
| Recessive model | A A | 12 (3.72) | 5 (1.46) | ||
| GA+GG | 311 (96.28) | 338 (98.54) | 3.408 | 0.065 | |
| Additive model | G A | 106 (32.82) | 92 (26.82) | ||
| AA+GG | 217 (67.18) | 251 (73.18) | 2.862 | 0.091 | |
| Allele | G | 516 (79.88) | 584 (85.13) | ||
| A | 130 (20.12) | 102 (14.87) | 6.388 | 0.011 |
Table 3 showed that there are significant difference between the two groups in genotype and allele distribution.
Genotyping and allele distributions of Klotho in the Uygur population (n, %)
| Loci | Genotype | MCI group | Control group | χ2 value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs9536314/ | rs9527025 | ||||
| Genotype | T T | 115 (69.28) | 137 (79.65) | ||
| T G | 43 (25.90) | 31 (18.02) | |||
| G G | 8 (4.82) | 4 (2.33) | 5.095 | 0.078 | |
| Dominant mode | T T | 115 (69.28) | 137 (79.65) | ||
| TG+GG | 51 (30.72) | 35 (20.35) | 4.792 | 0.029 | |
| Recessive model | G G | 8 (4.82) | 4 (2.33) | ||
| TT+TG | 158 (95.18) | 168 (97.67) | 1.534 | 0.216 | |
| Additive model | T G | 43 (25.90) | 31 (18.02) | ||
| TT+GG | 123 (74.10) | 141 (81.98) | 3.068 | 0.080 | |
| Allele | T | 273 (82.22) | 305 (88.66) | ||
| G | 59 (17.78) | 39 (11.34) | 5.642 | 0.018 | |
| rs1207568 | |||||
| Genotype | G G | 97 (58.43) | 120 (69.77) | ||
| G A | 63 (37.95) | 49 (28.49) | |||
| A A | 6 (3.62) | 3 (1.74) | 5.083 | 0.079 | |
| Dominant mode | G G | 97 (58.43) | 120 (69.77) | ||
| GA+AA | 69 (41.57) | 52 (30.23) | 4.721 | 0.030 | |
| Recessive model | A A | 6 (3.62) | 3 (1.74) | ||
| GA+GG | 160 (96.38) | 169 (98.26) | / | 0.330* | |
| Additive model | G A | 63 (37.95) | 49 (28.49) | ||
| AA+GG | 103 (62.05) | 123 (71.51) | 3.414 | 0.065 | |
| Allele | G | 257 (77.41) | 289 (84.01) | ||
| A | 75 (22.59) | 55 (15.99) | 4.741 | 0.030 |
Table 4 showed that there are significant difference between the two groups in genotype and allele distribution. (* after an accurate Fisher validation;/indicates no data).
Genotyping and allele distributions of Klotho in the Han population. (n, %)
| MCI group | Control group | χ2 value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs9536314/ | rs9527025 | ||||
| Genotype | T T | 157 (100.00) | 167 (97.66) | ||
| T G | 0 (0.00) | 4 (2.34) | |||
| G G | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | / | 0.124* | |
| Dominant model | T T | 157 (100.00) | 167 (97.66) | ||
| TG+GG | 0 (0.00) | 4 (2.34) | / | 0.124* | |
| Recessive model | G G | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | ||
| TT+TG | 157 (100.00) | 171 (97.66) | / | / | |
| Additive model | T G | 0 (0.00) | 4 (2.34) | ||
| TT+GG | 157 (100.00) | 167 (97.66) | / | 0.124* | |
| Allele | T | 314 (100.00) | 338 (98.8) | ||
| G | 0 (0) | 4 (1.2) | / | 0.125* | |
| rs1207568 | |||||
| Genotype | G G | 108 (68.79) | 126 (73.68) | ||
| G A | 43 (27.39) | 43 (25.15) | |||
| A A | 6 (3.82) | 2 (1.17) | 2.792 | 0.247 | |
| Dominant model | G G | 108 (68.79) | 126 (73.68) | ||
| GA+AA | 49 (31.21) | 45 (26.32) | 0.959 | 0.327 | |
| Recessive model | A A | 6 (3.82) | 2 (1.17) | ||
| GA+GG | 151 (96.18) | 169 (98.83) | / | 0.159* | |
| Additive model | G A | 43 (27.39) | 43 (25.15) | ||
| AA+GG | 114 (72.61) | 128 (74.85) | 0.213 | 0.645 | |
| Allele | G | 259 (82.48) | 295 (86.26) | ||
| A | 55 (17.52) | 47 (13.74) | 1.775 | 0.183 |
Table 5 showed that there are significant difference between the two groups in genotype and allele distribution. (*after an accurate Fisher validation;/indicates no data.)
Genotyping and allele distributions of Klotho between the Han and Uygur population (n, %)
| Locus | Genotype | MCI group | Control group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uygur population | Han population | χ2 value | P value | Uygur population | Han population | χ2 value | P value | ||
| rs9536314/9527025 | |||||||||
| Genotype | TT | 115 (69.28) | 157 (100.00) | 137 (79.65) | 167 (97.7) | ||||
| TG | 43 (25.90) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (18.02) | 4 (2.33) | |||||
| GG | 8 (4.82) | 0 (0.00) | 57.279 | 0.000* | 4 (2.3) | 0 (0.00) | 27.786 | 0.000* | |
| Allele | T | 273 (82.23) | 314 (100.00) | 305 (88.66) | 338 (98.83) | ||||
| G | 59 (17.77) | 0 (0.000) | 61.41 | 0.000* | 39 (11.34) | 4 (1.17) | 30.176 | 0.000* | |
| rs1207568 | |||||||||
| Genotype | GG | 97 (58.43) | 108 (68.79) | 120 (69.77) | 126 (73.68) | ||||
| GA | 63 (37.95) | 43 (27.39) | 49 (28.48) | 43 (25.15) | |||||
| AA | 6 (3.62) | 6 (3.82) | 4.116 | 0.128 | 3 (1.75) | 2 (1.17) | 0.735 | 0.693 | |
| Allele | G | 257 (77.41) | 259 (82.48) | 289 (84.01) | 295 (86.26) | ||||
| A | 75 (22.59) | 55 (17.52) | 2.585 | 0.108 | 55 (15.99) | 47 (13.74) | 0.683 | 0.409 | |
(* indicates P < 0.000).
The Relationship of Klotho Genotype, Genetic Models, and MCI
| Polymorphism locus/genetic model | Genotype | After adjustment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| rs9536314/rs9527025 | |||
| Genotype | T T | 1 | 1 |
| T G | 1.309 (0.829-2.068) | 1.293 (0.791-2.112) | |
| G G | 2.775 (0.534-14.424) | 2.904 (0.552-15.260) | |
| Dominant model | T T | 1 | 1 |
| TG+GG | 1.381 (0.887-2.149) | 1.371 (0.851-2.208) | |
| Recessive model | G G | 1.637 (0.718-3.730) | 1.654 (0.723-3.783) |
| TT+TG | 1 | 1 | |
| Additive model | T G | 0.772 (0.489-1.219) | 0.792 (0.485-1.292) |
| TT+GG | 1 | 1 | |
| rs1207568 | |||
| Genotype | G G | 1 | 1 |
| G A | 1.131 (0.767-1.667) | 1.124 (0.721-1.750) | |
| A A | 1.056 (0.741-1.503) | 1.057 (0.601-1.858) | |
| Dominant model | G G | 1 | 1 |
| GA+AA | 1.086 (0.793-1.487) | 1.110 (0.719-1.713) | |
| Recessive model | A A | 1.001 (0.855-1.173) | 0.981 (0.787-1.224) |
| GA+GG | 1 | 1 | |
| Additive model | G A | 0.907 (0.641-1.283) | 0.914 (0.645-1.294) |
| AA+GG | 1 | 1 |
(# adjusted for age, gender, ethnic and SBP).
Extension primer sequences
| Primer name | Sequence(5'to3') | Target amplification segment (bp) |
|---|---|---|
| rs9536314/rs9527025F | GTCCCACTCAGGGAGGTCAGGT | 342 |
| rs9536314/rs9527025R | TCCAGGAAAGCAGTTGCCTCAG | |
| rs1207568F | TAGGATTTCGGCCAGTCCCTAA | 243 |
| rs1207568R | TTCGTGGACGCTCAGGTTCATT |
Extension primer sequences for SNP
| Primer name | Sequence (5'to3') |
|---|---|
| rs1207568SR | GAAAAGGCGCCGACCAACTTT |
| rs9536314SF | TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTGAATAACCTTTCATCTATTCTGCCTGAT |
| rs9527025SR | TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTGAAAACTCAAGGTGGGTCCAAAG |
Figure 1Genotyping results of three SNPs
(A) rs1207568 (Upper: AA; Middle: GG; Lower: AG); (B) rs9536314 (Upper: TT; Middle: GG; Lower: TG); (C) rs9527025 (Upper: TT; Middle: GG; Lower: TG).