| Literature DB >> 22801903 |
P Wojciechowski1, A Lipowska2, P Rys1, K G Ewens3, S Franks4, S Tan5, E Lerchbaum6, J Vcelak7, R Attaoua8, M Straczkowski9, R Azziz10, T M Barber11, A Hinney12, B Obermayer-Pietsch6, P Lukasova7, B Bendlova7, F Grigorescu8, I Kowalska9, M O Goodarzi13, J F Strauss14, M I McCarthy15,16, M T Malecki17,18.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: FTO gene single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been shown to be associated with obesity-related traits and type 2 diabetes. Several small studies have suggested a greater than expected effect of the FTO rs9939609 SNP on weight in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). We therefore aimed to examine the impact of FTO genotype on BMI and weight in PCOS.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22801903 PMCID: PMC3433670 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-012-2638-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetologia ISSN: 0012-186X Impact factor: 10.122
Fig. 1PRISMA diagram of the study selection process
Characteristics of the study population
| Population | Country | Total ( | Mean age (years) | White ethnicity (%) | TT carriers | AT carriers | AA carriers | A-allele frequency (SD) | Test for HWE ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Weight (kg) | BMI (kg/m2) |
| Weight (kg) | BMI (kg/m2) |
| Weight (kg) | BMI (kg/m2) | |||||||
| Wehr et al [ | Austria | 288 | 28.05 (6.30) | 100 | 87 (30) | 70.17 (18.19) | 25.21 (6.31) | 150 (52) | 73.70 (20.80) | 26.85 (7.48) | 51 (18) | 75.70 (19.47) | 27.27 (6.65) | 0.44 (0.02) | 0.32 |
| Vcelak et al [ | Czech Republic | 243 | 27.65 (7.07) | 100 | 80 (33) | 70.46 (15.96) | 25.18 (5.47) | 116 (48) | 77.01 (19.59) | 27.61 (7.09) | 47 (19) | 79.80 (16.93) | 28.61 (6.13) | 0.43 (0.02) | 0.67 |
| Kowalska et al [ | Poland | 136 | 25.36 (5.45) | 100 | 35 (26) | 72.58 (20.19) | 26.07 (6.78) | 61 (45) | 78.20 (20.73) | 28.61 (7.01) | 40 (29) | 82.92 (20.49) | 29.72 (6.71) | 0.52 (0.03) | 0.24 |
| Barber et al [ | UK | 445 | 32.27 (7.02) | 100 | 129 (29) | 74.93 (20.37) | 27.57 (7.30) | 218 (49) | 79.17 (23.42) | 28.88 (8.54) | 98 (22) | 82.21 (22.15) | 30.00 (8.04) | 0.47 (0.02) | 0.74 |
| Tan et al [ | Germany | 383 | 27.97 (6.44) | 100 | 110 (29) | 86.57 (23.07) | 30.85 (7.60) | 191 (50) | 85.45 (24.06) | 30.46 (8.42) | 82 (21) | 97.16 (30.89) | 34.45 (9.97) | 0.46 (0.02) | 0.96 |
| Ewens et al [ | USA | 395 | 27.25 (7.02) | 91a | 130 (33) | 86.16 (27.07) | 32.07 (9.83) | 197 (50) | 87.33 (24.93) | 32.21 (8.75) | 68 (17) | 97.30 (27.98) | 35.64 (9.82) | 0.42 (0.02) | 0.65 |
| Ewens et al [ | USA | 469 | 27.60 (5.81) | 91a | 139 (30) | 94.56 (22.90) | 34.99 (8.10) | 233 (50) | 91.71 (23.22) | 34.46 (8.36) | 97 (21) | 106.72 (26.79) | 38.23 (9.36) | 0.46 (0.02) | 0.97 |
| Attaoua et al [ | France, Romania | 189 | 24.68 (5.59) | 100 | 52 (28) | NA | 27.96 (7.67) | 87 (46) | NA | 27.99 (6.72) | 50 (26) | NA | 30.82 (6.54) | 0.49 (0.03) | 0.28 |
Mean age, weight and BMI are shown with SD in parentheses
aIn the cohorts studied by Ewens et al [24] white ethnicity was 91%, but we do not know the exact distribution within each cohort
Fig. 2Inverse variance (IV) meta-analysis of per allele (A/C) effect increase in log-transformed BMI, expressed in z score units. Forest plot and corresponding values represent point estimates for per allele effect together with 95% CI. Pooled weighted mean difference effect size with 95% CI is also shown. Each cohort is represented by the name of the first author. Test for heterogeneity: Q = 2.57, df = 7, p = 0.9217, I 2 = 0.00%. Test overall effect: Z = 6.69, p < 0.0001
Fig. 3Inverse variance (IV) meta-analysis of per allele (A) effect increase in log-transformed body weight, expressed in z score units. Forest plot and corresponding values represent point estimates for per allele effect together with 95% CI. Pooled weighted effect size with 95% CI is also shown. Each cohort is represented by the name of the first author. Test for heterogeneity: Q = 1.78, df = 6, p = 0.9388, I 2 = 0.00%. Test overall effect: z = 6.46, p < 0.0001
Fig. 4Comparison of the effect of the FTO polymorphism on BMI between women with PCOS and the general female population from the GIANT Consortium (a) and the study of Frayling et al [3] (b). White columns represent the per allele effect increase in the PCOS population, whereas grey columns represent the corresponding effect calculated for the general population. Data are expressed as either rank-based inverse normally transformed BMI (a) or log-transformed BMI z scores (b). Error bars represent SE. Comparison between cohorts was performed with a two-sided t test. † p = 0.0002 for comparison between women with PCOS and the general female population from the GIANT Consortium. *p = 0.0146 for comparison between women with PCOS and the general female population described by Frayling et al [3]
Linear regression analysis for assessing association between genotype and per allele logBMI z score according to additive, recessive and dominant models. Slopes together with p value and AIC are given for each regression test. The best-fitting genetic model was selected on the basis of the lowest value of AIC
| Population | Mean BMI of TT variants (kg/m2) | Additive | Recessive | Dominant | Best-fitting model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β |
| AIC | β |
| AIC | β |
| AIC | |||
| Vcelak et al [ | 25.2 | 0.28 | 0.002 | −7.1 | 0.33 | 0.040 | −1.2 | 0.41 | 0.002 | −6.3 | Additive |
| Wehr et al [ | 25.2 | 0.17 | 0.055 | −0.7 | 0.18 | 0.254 | 1.7 | 0.25 | 0.058 | −0.6 | Additive |
| Kowalska et al [ | 26.1 | 0.28 | 0.015 | −2.9 | 0.32 | 0.094 | 0.2 | 0.46 | 0.018 | −2.6 | Additive |
| Barber et al [ | 27.6 | 0.15 | 0.022 | −2.2 | 0.22 | 0.062 | −0.5 | 0.20 | 0.062 | −0.5 | Additive |
| Attaoua et al [ | 28.0 | 0.22 | 0.026 | −2.0 | 0.42 | 0.010 | −3.7 | 0.18 | 0.265 | 1.8 | Recessive |
| Tan et al [ | 30.9 | 0.18 | 0.014 | −3.0 | 0.44 | 0.0004 | −7.5 | 0.07 | 0.539 | 4.7 | Recessive |
| Ewans (PCOS cases) et al [ | 32.1 | 0.18 | 0.016 | −2.8 | 0.37 | 0.005 | −4.7 | 0.14 | 0.190 | 1.3 | Recessive |
| Ewans (PCOS families) et al [ | 34.99 | 0.15 | 0.025 | −2.0 | 0.39 | 0.001 | −8.6 | 0.05 | 0.662 | 2.8 | Recessive |
Fig. 5Mixed-effect meta-regression analysis correlating the mean difference in (a) log-transformed BMI z score units between AT/CT and TT (dependent variable) and mean BMI in the TT group as independent variable or (b) log-transformed body weight z score units between AT and TT (dependent variable) and mean body weight in the TT group (independent variable). The solid lines indicate the predicted effects with 95% CI (dashed lines). Circles represent point estimates for each cohort. Study weight is represented by the diameter of the corresponding circle. Error bars represent the SE of each point estimate. Dotted lines represent a lack of phenotypic difference between the TT and AT/CT polymorphism. There was a statistically significant inverse correlation between mean BMI in the TT group and the AT-associated increase in logBMI (β = −0.0381, p = 0.0033). Similarly, a significant inverse correlation was observed between mean body weight in the TT group and the AT-associated increase in log-body weight (β = −0.0161, p = 0.0041)