| Literature DB >> 15601533 |
Indrani Halder1, Mark D Shriver.
Abstract
Admixture is an important evolutionary force that can and should be used in efforts to apply genomic data and technology to the study of complex disease genetics. Admixture linkage disequilibrium (ALD) is created by the process of admixture and, in recently admixed populations, extends for substantial distances (of the order of 10 to 20 cM). The amount of ALD generated depends on the level of admixture, ancestry information content of markers and the admixture dynamics of the population, and thus influences admixture mapping (AM). The authors discuss different models of admixture and how these can have an impact on the success of AM studies. Selection of markers is important, since markers informative for parental population ancestry are required and these are uncommon. Rarely does the process of admixture result in a population that is uniform for individual admixture levels, but instead there is substantial population stratification. This stratification can be understood as variation in individual admixtures and can be both a source of statistical power for ancestry--phenotype correlation studies as well as a confounder in causing false-positives in gene association studies. Methods to detect and control for stratification in case/control and AM studies are reviewed, along with recent studies showing individual ancestry--phenotype correlations. Using skin pigmentation as a model phenotype, implications of AM in complex disease gene mapping studies are discussed. Finally, the article discusses some limitations of this approach that should be considered when designing an effective AM study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2003 PMID: 15601533 PMCID: PMC3525000 DOI: 10.1186/1479-7364-1-1-52
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Genomics ISSN: 1473-9542 Impact factor: 4.639
Figure 1The amount of admixture linkage disequilibrium (ALD) expected under the continuous gene flow (CGF) and hybrid isolation (HI) models of admixture for unlinked loci and loci linked at 5 cM. The results shown are for two loci with δ = 0.54 and 0.49, and with 50 per cent admixture in the first generation for the HI model and 1.9 per cent admixture for 36 generations under the CGF model (equivalent to 50 per cent total). ALD under the HI model decreases for both linked and unlinked loci, whereas ALD under the CGF model for both linked and unlinked loci increases initially and then decreases (adapted from Pfaff et al., 2001 [15])
Diseases with possible genetic components based on ethnic differences in disease rates and hence amenable to admixture mapping
| Disease | High-risk groups | Low-risk groups | Relative risk ratio | Reference(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obesity | African women | Europeans | 2:4 | [ |
| Native Americans | ||||
| South Asians (central adiposity,) | ||||
| Pacific Islanders, Aboriginal Australians | ||||
| Non-insulin dependent diabetes (NIDDM) | South Asians, West Africans, Peninsular Arabs, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans | Europeans | 4:7 | [ |
| Hypertension | African Americans, West Africans | Europeans | 2:3 | [ |
| Coronary heart disease | South Asians | West African men | 2:4 | [ |
| End-stage renal disease | Native Americans and African populations | Europeans | N/A | [ |
| Dementia | Europeans | African Americans, Hispanic Americans | N/A | [ |
| Autoimmune diseases: | ||||
| Systemic lupus | West Africans | Europeans | N/A | [ |
| erythematosus | Native Americans | Europeans | ||
| Skin cancer | Europeans | N/A | [ | |
| Lung cancer | Africans | European Americans, Chinese, Japanese | [ | |
| Prostate cancer | Africans and African Americans | [ | ||
| Multiple sclerosis | Europeans | Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Native Siberians, New Zealand Maoris | N/A | [ |
| Osteoporosis | European Americans | African Americans | N/A | [ |
N/A = not available.
Figure 2Triangle plot showing biogeographical ancestry of three Hispanic populations. Each vertex represents a parental population, which for this plot are Europeans, West Africans and Native Americans. The three populations shown are Hispanics from the San Luis Valley (blank circles), Puerto Ricans from New York City (grey diamonds) and Mexicans from Tlapa, Mexico (grey triangles) (adapted from Bonilla, 2003 [17])
Figure 3The relationship between proportional ancestry and skin pigmentation in three Hispanic populations. For all populations, proportional ancestry was estimated using the maximum likelihood (ML) method (adapted from Bonilla, 2003) [17]. (A) Percent Native American ancestry versus lightness index (L) in Hispanics from the San Luis Valley, Colorado (ancestry estimated using 22 AIMs). (B) Percent Native American ancestry versus melanin index in Mexicans from Tlapa, Mexico (ancestry estimates using 29 AIMs). (C) Percent African ancestry versus melanin index (M) in Puerto Ricans from New York City (ancestry estimated using 35 AIMs)
Figure 4The relationship between percent African ancestry and skin pigmentation in three populations. Percent African Ancestry (obtained using 34 AIMs and calculated by the maximum likelihood (ML) method) and the melanin index (M) are shown for three populations, European Americans from State College, Pennsylvania (diamonds), African Americans from Washington, DC and State College, Pennsylvania (squares) and African Caribbeans from Britain (triangles). (With permission from Shriver et al., 2003 [14])
Diseases showing ancestry-phenotype correlation
| Phenotype | Population studied | Association observed | Test statistic reported | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) | Mexican Americans and Pima Indians | Amerindian ancestry with NIDDM | Kendall's | [ |
| NIDDM | Mexican Americans | Amerindian ancestry with NIDDM | 0.943c (p < 0.001) | [ |
| 1) Body mass index (BMI) | Pima Indians | European admixture with BMI, plasma glucose, 2-hour glucose | 0.455b (95% CI: 0.301-0.688) | [ |
| 2) Plasma glucose | ||||
| 3) NIDDM | ||||
| NIDDM | Mexican Americans | Native American ancestry with NIDDM prevalence | N/A | [ |
| Skin pigmentation (reflectrometry) | 1) African Americans | Melanin index versus % African ancestry | 1) 0.21a, (p < 0.0001) | [ |
| 2) Afro-Caribbeans | 2) 0.16a (p < 0.0001) | * Mapped phenotype to two loci: TYR and OCA as candidates which influence normal pigmentation variation | ||
| 3) European Americans | 3) 0.001a (p = NS) | |||
| Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) | Caribbeans (without Indian or Chinese ancestry) | SLE and African Ancestry | 28.4 | [ |
| (95% CI: 1.7-485 after SES adjustmentb) | ||||
| Insulin-related phenotypes | African American | African admixture (ADM): | [ | |
| Europeans | ||||
| Americans | ||||
| 1) Insulin sensitivity (SI), | 1) with SI | 1) (p < 0.001)a | ||
| 2) Fasting insulin (FA), | 2) with FA | 2) (p < 0.01)a | ||
| 3) Acute insulin response (AIR) | 3) with AIR | 3) (p < 0.001)a | ||
| Oxygen capacity | Quechua natives | Positive: | 0.8a | [ |
| Spanish admixture with large VO2 at high altitudes | ||||
| Bone mineral density (BMD) | Puerto Ricans from New York | Positive: | 0.065a (p = 0.042) | [ |
| European admixture with lower BMD | ||||
| Skin pigmentation (Lightness index) | Hispanics from the San Luis Valley, Colorado | Positive: | 0.0821a (p < 0.001) | [ |
| Proportional European ancestry with increased Lightness |
a = R2; b = risk ratio; c = rank-order correlation.