Sporadic heart failure is thought to have a genetic component, but the contributing genetic events are poorly defined. Here, we used ultra-high-throughput resequencing of pooled DNAs to identify SNPs in 4 biologically relevant cardiac signaling genes, and then examined the association between allelic variants and incidence of sporadic heart failure in 2 large Caucasian populations. Resequencing of DNA pools, each containing DNA from approximately 100 individuals, was rapid, accurate, and highly sensitive for identifying common and rare SNPs; it also had striking advantages in time and cost efficiencies over individual resequencing using conventional Sanger methods. In 2,606 individuals examined, we identified a total of 129 separate SNPs in the 4 cardiac signaling genes, including 23 nonsynonymous SNPs that we believe to be novel. Comparison of allele frequencies between 625 Caucasian nonaffected controls and 1,117 Caucasian individuals with systolic heart failure revealed 12 SNPs in the cardiovascular heat shock protein gene HSPB7 with greater proportional representation in the systolic heart failure group; all 12 SNPs were confirmed in an independent replication study. These SNPs were found to be in tight linkage disequilibrium, likely reflecting a single genetic event, but none altered amino acid sequence. These results establish the power and applicability of pooled resequencing for comparative SNP association analysis of target subgenomes in large populations and identify an association between multiple HSPB7 polymorphisms and heart failure.
Scot J. Matkovich, Derek J. Van Booven, Anna Hindes, Min Young Kang, Todd E. Druley, Francesco L.M. Vallania, Robi D. Mitra, Muredach P. Reilly, Thomas P. Cappola, Gerald W. Dorn II
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 345 | 39 |
62 | 32 | |
Figure | 104 | 6 |
Table | 138 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 27 | 2 |
Citation downloads | 45 | 0 |
Totals | 721 | 79 |
Total Views | 800 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.