Article

Apolipoprotein E gene polymorphism: effects on plasma lipids and risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease

Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Cardiovascular Diabetology (Impact Factor: 3.71). 04/2012; 11:36. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-11-36
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The most common apolipoprotein E (apoE) gene polymorphism has been found to influence plasma lipid concentration and its correlation with coronary artery disease (CAD) has been extensively investigated in the last decade. It is, however, unclear whether apoE gene polymorphism is also associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The knowledge of this study may provide the primary prevention for T2DM and CAD development before its initiation and progression. Therefore, this study was carried out to determine the association between apoE gene polymorphism and T2DM with and without CAD and its role in lipid metabolism.
The case-control study was carried out on a total of 451 samples including 149 normal control subjects, 155 subjects with T2DM, and 147 subjects with T2DM complicated with CAD. The apoE gene polymorphism was tested by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the possible risks of T2DM and CAD.
A significantly increased frequency of E3/E4 genotype was observed only in T2DM with CAD group (p = 0.0004), whereas the ε4 allele was significantly higher in both T2DM (p = 0.047) and T2DM with CAD (p = 0.009) as compared with controls. E3/E4 genotype was also the independent risk in developing CAD after adjusting with established risk factors with adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.52 (95%CI 1.28-4.97, p = 0.008). The independent predictor of individuals carrying ε4 allele still remained significantly associated with both CAD (adjusted OR 2.32, 95%CI 1.17-4.61, p = 0.016) and T2DM (adjusted OR 2.04, 95%CI 1.07-3.86, p = 0.029). After simultaneously examining the joint association of E3/E4 genotype combined with either obesity or smoking the risk increased to approximately 5-fold in T2DM (adjusted OR 4.93, 95%CI 1.74-13.98, p = 0.003) and 10-fold in CAD (adjusted OR 10.48, 95%CI 3.56-30.79, p < 0.0001). The association between apoE genotypes on plasma lipid levels was compared between E3/E3 as a reference and E4-bearing genotypes. E4-bearing genotypes showed lower HDL-C and higher VLDL-C and TG, whereas other values of plasma lipid concentrations showed no significant difference.
These results indicate that ε4 allele has influence on lipid profiles and is associated with the development of both T2DM with and without CAD, and furthermore, it increased the risk among the subjects with obesity and/or smoking, the conditions associated with high oxidative stress.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Charn Sriratanasathavorn, Jul 03, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
204 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes (2DM), obesity, and coronary artery disease (CAD) are frequently coexisted being as key components of metabolic syndrome. Whether there is shared genetic background underlying these diseases remained unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of 35 genome screens for 2DM, 36 for obesity or body mass index (BMI)-defined obesity, and 21 for CAD using genome search meta-analysis (GSMA), which combines linkage results to identify regions with only weak evidence and provide genetic interactions among different diseases. For each study, 120 genomic bins of approximately 30 cM were defined and ranked according to the best linkage evidence within each bin. For each disease, bin 6.2 achieved genomic significanct evidence, and bin 9.3, 10.5, 16.3 reached suggestive level for 2DM. Bin 11.2 and 16.3, and bin 10.5 and 9.3, reached suggestive evidence for obesity and CAD respectively. In pooled all three diseases, bin 9.3 and 6.5 reached genomic significant and suggestive evidence respectively, being relatively much weaker for 2DM/CAD or 2DM/obesity or CAD/obesity. Further, genomewide significant evidence was observed of bin 16.3 and 4.5 for 2DM/obesity, which is decreased when CAD was added. These findings indicated that bin 9.3 and 6.5 are most likely to be shared by 2DM, obesity and CAD. And bin 16.3 and 4.5 are potentially common regions to 2DM and obesity only. The observed shared susceptibility regions imply a partly overlapping genetic aspects of disease development. Fine scanning of these regions will definitely identify more susceptibility genes and causal variants.
    Cardiovascular Diabetology 06/2012; 11:68. DOI:10.1186/1475-2840-11-68 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and diabetes are 13 among the most common diseases associated with age-14 ing. The pathology of AD is strongly associated with 15 accumulated misfolding proteins that results in neuronal 16 dysfunction within the brain. Diabetes, on the contrary, 17 is characterised by altered insulin signaling that results 18 in reduced glucose uptake, metabolic suppression of 19 energy consuming cells and conversion of glucose to 20 fat in the liver. Despite distinguishing features, these 21 diseases share common elements and may in fact be 22 viewed as fundamentally similar disorders that differ in 23 magnitude of specific traits, primarily affected tissues 24 and time of onset. In this review, we outline the funda-25 mental basis of each of the two diseases and highlight 26 similarities in their pathophysiology. Further ahead we 27 will discuss these features in relation to the develop-28 ment of drugs to treat these two diseases, particularly 29 AD, for which the development of therapeutic chemicals 30 has proven to be particularly difficult. We conclude with 31 comments on efforts to develop a simple organism, 32 Caenorhabditis elegans, as a genetic model to be used 33 to study the systems biology of diabetes and AD.
    Molecular Neurobiology 09/2012; 47(1). DOI:10.1007/s12035-012-8352-z · 5.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently the world faces epidemic of several closely related conditions: obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The lipid profile of these patients and those with metabolic syndrome is characterized by the concurrent presence of qualitative as well as quantitative lipoprotein abnormalities: low levels of HDL, increased triglycerides, and prevalence of LDL particles that are smaller and denser than normal. This lipid phenotype has been defined as atherogenic dyslipidemia. Overwhelming evidences demonstrate that all components of the atherogenic dyslipidemia are important risk-factors for cardiovascular diseases. Optimal reduction of cardiovascular risk through comprehensive management of atherogenic dyslipidemias basically depends of the presence of efficacious lipid-modulating agents (beyond statin-based reduction of LDL-C). The most important class of medications which can be effectively used nowadays to combat atherogenic dyslipidemias is the fibrates. From a clinical point of view, in all available 5 randomized control trials beneficial effects of major fibrates (gemfibrozil, fenofibrate, bezafibrate) were clearly demonstrated and were highly significant in patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. In these circumstances, the main determinant of the overall results of the trial is mainly dependent of the number of the included appropriate patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. In a meta-analysis of dyslipidemic subgroups totaling 4726 patients a significant 35% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular events was observed compared with a non significant 6% reduction in those without dyslipidemia. However, different fibrates may have a somewhat different spectrum of effects. Currently only fenofibrate was investigated and proved to be effective in reducing microvascular complications of diabetes. Bezafibrate reduced the severity of intermittent claudication. Cardinal differences between bezafibrate and other fibrates are related to the effects on glucose metabolism and insulin resistance. Bezafibrate is the only clinically available pan - (alpha, beta, gamma) PPAR balanced activator. Bezafibrate decreases blood glucose level, HbA1C, insulin resistance and reduces the incidence of T2DM compared to placebo or other fibrates. Among major fibrates, bezafibrate appears to have the strongest and fenofibrate the weakest effect on HDL-C. Current therapeutic use of statins as monotherapy is still leaving many patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia at high risk for coronary events because even intensive statin therapy does not eliminate the residual cardiovascular risk associated with low HDL and/or high triglycerides. As compared with statin monotherapy (effective mainly on LDL-C levels and plaque stabilization), the association of a statin with a fibrate will also have a major impact on triglycerides, HDL and LDL particle size. Moreover, in the specific case of bezafibrate one could expect neutralizing of the adverse pro-diabetic effect of statins. Though muscle pain and myositis is an issue in statin/fibrate treatment, adverse interaction appears to occur to a significantly greater extent when gemfibrozil is administered. However, bezafibrate and fenofibrate seems to be safer and better tolerated. Combined fibrate/statin therapy is more effective in achieving a comprehensive lipid control and may lead to additional cardiovascular risk reduction, as could be suggested for fenofibrate following ACCORD Lipid study subgroup analysis and for bezafibrate on the basis of one small randomized study and multiple observational data. Therefore, in appropriate patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia fibrates- either as monotherapy or combined with statins -- are consistently associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular events. Fibrates currently constitute an indispensable part of the modern anti-dyslipidemic arsenal for patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia.
    Cardiovascular Diabetology 10/2012; 11(1):125. DOI:10.1186/1475-2840-11-125 · 3.71 Impact Factor