Distributions of plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations exhibit marked interracial differences. Apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]), the unique constituent of Lp(a), is highly polymorphic in length due to allelic variations in the number of kringle 4(K-4)-encoding sequences. Plasma Lp(a) concentrations are inversely related to the number of K-4 repeats in the apo(a) alleles. To determine the contribution of this length variation to the interracial variation in plasma Lp(a) levels, we compared apo(a) allele size, glycoprotein size, and plasma Lp(a) concentrations in Caucasians, Chinese, and African Americans. Caucasians and African Americans had very different distributions of plasma Lp(a) concentrations yet there was no significant difference in the overall frequency distributions of their apo(a) alleles. Over the entire size spectrum of apo(a) alleles, the plasma Lp(a) levels were higher in African Americans than in Caucasians. Conversely, Caucasians and Chinese had similar plasma Lp(a) concentrations but significantly different apo(a) allele size distributions. Therefore, interracial differences in the plasma concentrations of Lp(a) are not due to differences in the frequency distributions of apo(a) alleles. We also examined the relationship between apo(a) allele size and the presence of detectable plasma apo(a) protein in plasma. Apo(a) alleles associated with no detectable plasma protein were not of uniformly large size, as had been expected, but were distributed over the entire size spectrum. From this analysis, we conclude that there is no common "null" allele at the apo(a) locus.
A Gaw, E Boerwinkle, J C Cohen, H H Hobbs
Usage data is cumulative from July 2025 through July 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 358 | 37 |
| 114 | 18 | |
| Figure | 0 | 4 |
| Scanned page | 748 | 3 |
| Citation downloads | 190 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,410 | 62 |
| Total Views | 1,472 | |
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.