| Literature DB >> 23153210 |
Nasser M Al-Daghri1, Rachele Cagliani, Diego Forni, Majed S Alokail, Uberto Pozzoli, Khalid M Alkharfy, Shaun Sabico, Mario Clerici, Manuela Sironi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The NPC1 gene encodes a protein involved in intracellular lipid trafficking; its second endosomal loop (loop 2) is a receptor for filoviruses. A polymorphism (His215Arg) in NPC1 was associated with obesity in Europeans. Adaptations to diet and pathogens represented powerful selective forces; thus, we analyzed the evolutionary history of the gene and exploited this information for the identification of variants/residues of functional importance in human disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23153210 PMCID: PMC3520752 DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Figure 1Schematic representation of the NPC1 protein (not to scale). Cylinders represent the transmembrane regions; the SSD domain is depicted in grey. Luminal loop 2 is represented in blue and red to account for the recombination breakpoint. The position of the three positively selected sites in loop 2 is shown (yellow circles) with the alignment of a few representative mammalian species. The position of nonsynonymous polymorphisms with a minor allele frequency higher than 1% is represented by the green circles. SSD, sterol sensing domain
Likelihood ratio test statistics for models of variable selective pressure among sites (F61 model of codon frequency).
| Region/selection model(number of codons) | -2ΔLnL | % of sites(average dN/dS) | Selected sites | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M7 versus M8 | 2 | 10.04 | 0.0066 | 1.3% (1.37) | 182 (0.99, n.s.) |
| M8a versus M8 | 1 | 4.87 | 0.027 | - | - |
| M7 versus M8 | 2 | 25.86 | <0.0001 | 1.3% (1.78) | 416 (0.99, 0.99),417 (0.98, 1), 421 (0.91, 0.99) |
| M8a versus M8 | 1 | 10.98 | 0.0009 | - | |
| M7 versus M8 | 2 | <0.01 | >0.99 | - | - |
| M8a versus M8 | 1 | 1.96 | 0.16 | - | |
| M7 versus M8 | 2 | 5.70 | 0.058 | - | - |
| M8a versus M8 | 1 | 0.02 | >0.88 | - | - |
| M7 versus M8 | 2 | 0.004 | >0.99 | - | - |
| M8a versus M8 | 1 | 1.52 | 0.21 | - | - |
M7 is a null model that assumes that 0<ω<1 is beta distributed among sites; M8a assumes 0<ω≤1; these two models are compared to M8, which includes an extra category of sites with ω>1 (positive selection). d.f., degree of freedom; 2ΔLnL, twice the difference of the natural logs of the maximum likelihood of the models being compared; P value, P value of rejecting the neutral models (M7 or M8a) in favor of the positive selection model (M8); % of sites (average dN/dS), estimated percentage of sites evolving under positive selection by M8 (dN/dS for these codons); selected sites, the position refers to the entire NPC1 human sequence, P values obtained from BEB and REL analyses are shown. BEB, Bayes empirical Bayes; REL, random effects likelihood; SSD, sterol sensing domain.
Figure 2Evolutionary fingerprint of . The estimate of the distribution of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution rates is plotted on a log-log scale. The ellipses reflect a Gaussian-approximated variance in each individual rate estimate, and colored pixels show the density of the posterior sample of the distribution for a given rate. The diagonal line represents the neutral evolution expectation (ω = 1), points above the line correspond to positive selection (ω >1), and points below the line to purifying selection (ω <1)
Characteristics of the Saudi cohort.
| Obese | Non-obese | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2D | No T2D | T2D | No T2D | |
| Sample size | 441 | 379 | 203 | 445 |
| Females (%) | 261 (59) | 233 (61) | 73 (36) | 216 (48.5) |
| Males (%) | 180 (41) | 145 (39) | 130 (64) | 229 (51.5) |
| Age ± s.d. (years) | 53.07 ± 10.61 | 42.79 ± 10.15 | 55.54 ± 16.19 | 38.56 ± 13.90 |
| BMI ± s.d., kg/m2 | 35.62 ± 6.83 | 34.67 ± 3.92 | 24.25 ± 3.31 | 22.74 ± 3.3 |
T2D, type 2 diabetes.
Association analysis of .
| Trait | Minor allele | Whole sample | Males | Females | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI)b | OR (95% CI)b | OR (95% CI)b | |||||
| rs1788799 (C/G) | G (Met) | >0.5 | 1.05 (0.87 to 1.18) | >0.5 | 1.02 (0.81 to 1.27) | >0.5 | 1.02 (0.83 to 1.27) |
| rs1805081 (A/G) | G (Arg) | >0.5 | 0.83 (0.78 to 1.25) | >0.5 | 1.06 (0.76 to 1.47) | >0.5 | 0.93 (0.67 to 1.30 |
| rs1788799 (C/G) | G (Met) | 0.462 | 0.328 | >0.5 | 0.490 | >0.5 | 0.231 |
| rs1805081 (A/G) | G (Arg) | >0.5 | -0.411 | >0.5 | -0.343 | >0.5 | -0.450 |
| rs1788799 (C/G) | G (Met) | 1.24 (1.05 to 1.48) | 1.50 (1.15 to 1.95) | >0.5 | 1.07 (0.85 to 1.36) | ||
| rs1805081 (A/G) | G (Arg) | >0.5 | 1.06 (0.82 to 1.39) | >0.5 | 1.11 (0.76 to .60) | >0.5 | 1.04 (0.71 to 1.52) |
aP values were calculated using logistic or linear regression (as appropriate) with an additive model; Bonferroni-corrected P values are reported; nominally significant P values are in bold; bodds ratio and 95% confidence intervals refer to the minor allele. cregression coefficient. BMI, body mass index; OR, odds ratio; T2D, type 2 diabetes.
Association analysis of NPC1 haplotypes with T2D.
| Trait | Haplotype | Whole sample | Males | Females | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freq.a | Freq.a | Freq.a | |||||
| T2D (all) | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | 0.12 | 0.451 (1.11) | 0.12 | 0.495 (1.14) | 0.12 | 0.653 (1.09) | |
| AG (His-Met) | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.545 (1.08) | |||
| AC (His-Ile) | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 0.425 (0.91) | |||
| T2D (obese) | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | 0.12 | 0.577 (1.10) | 0.12 | 0.498 (1.20) | 0.12 | 0.780 (1.07) | |
| AG (His-Met) | 0.42 | 0.230 (1.14) | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.745 (0.95) | ||
| AC (His-Ile) | 0.46 | 0.142 (0.85) | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.813 (1.03) | ||
| T2D (non-obese) | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | 0.11 | 0.77 (1.07) | 0.11 | 0.957 (1.02) | 0.12 | 0.666 (1.19) | |
| AG (His-Met) | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.158 (1.40) | |||
| AC (His-Ile) | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.088 (0.65) | |||
ahaplotype frequency. Significant P values are in bold. Freq., frequency; T2D, type 2 diabetes.
Association analysis of NPC1 haplotypes with lipid levels.
| Trait | Haplotype | Whole sample | Males | Females | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BETAa | BETAa | BETAa | |||||
| HDL-cholesterol | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | -0.047 | -0.070 | -0.020 | 0.698 | |||
| AG (His-Met) | -0.013 | 0.32 | 0.004 | 0.803 | -0.0278 | ||
| AC (His-Ile) | 0.032 | 0.025 | 0.190 | 0.040 | |||
| LDL-cholesterol | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | -0.068 | 0.650 | -0.140 | 0.477 | -0.034 | 0.877 | |
| AG (His-Met) | 0.149 | 0.124 | -0.125 | 0.330 | 0.200 | 0.157 | |
| AC (His-Ile) | -0.105 | 0.265 | -0.701 | 0.583 | -0.144 | 0.289 | |
| Total cholesterol | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | -0.011 | 0.408 | 0.003 | 0.872 | -0.028 | 0.166 | |
| AG (His-Met) | 0.010 | 0.224 | 0.002 | 0.873 | 0.022 | 0.097 | |
| AC (His-Ile) | -0.005 | 0.538 | -0.003 | 0.794 | -0.008 | 0.505 | |
| Triglycerides | |||||||
| GC (Arg-Ile) | 0.045 | 0.101 | 0.104 | -0.0313 | 0.466 | ||
| AG (His-Met) | 0.024 | 0.173 | -0.014 | 0.563 | 0.071 | ||
| AC (His-Ile) | -0.041 | -0.031 | 0.181 | -0.052 | |||
aregression coefficient. Significant P values are in bold.