| Literature DB >> 28152013 |
Pierre Bougnères1,2, Sophie Le Fur1,2, Sophie Valtat1, Yoichiro Kamatani3, Mark Lathrop4, Alain-Jacques Valleron2.
Abstract
The "hygiene hypothesis" postulates that reduced exposure to infections favours the development of autoimmunity and childhood type 1 diabetes (T1D). But on the other side, viruses, notably enteroviruses, are suspected to trigger T1D. The assessment of the possible relationships between infections and T1D still defies the classical tools of epidemiology. We report the methods and results of a geographical approach that maps the addresses of patients to a communicable diseases surveillance database. We mapped the addresses of patients at birth, infancy and T1D diagnosis to the weekly estimates of the regional incidences of 5 frequent communicable diseases routinely collected since 1984 by the French Sentinel network. The pre-diagnostic infectious environment of 3548 patients with T1D diagnosed between 0.5 and 15 years was compared to those of 100 series of age-matched "virtual controls" drawn randomly on the map. Associations were classified as "suggestive" (summer diarrhea, SD, and varicella, V) when p< 0.05, or "significant" (influenza-like infections, ILI) when they passed the Bonferroni correction for FDR. Exposure to ILI and SD were associated with T1D risk, while V seemed protective. In the subset of 2521 patients for which we had genome wide data, we used a case-only approach to search for interactions between SNPs and the infectious environment as defined by the Sentinel database. Two SNPs, rs116624278 and rs77232854, showed significant interaction with exposure to V between 1 and 3 years of life. The infectious associations found should be taken as possible markers of patients' environment, not as direct causative factors of T1D. They require replication in other populations. The increasing public availability of geographical environmental databases will expand the present approach to map thousands of environmental factors to the lifeline of patients affected by various diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28152013 PMCID: PMC5289461 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Age distribution of the patients at T1D diagnosis.
| N | Mean (yrs) | Median (yrs) | SD (yrs) | [0–3] yrs (N) | [3–6] yrs (N) | [6–9] yrs (N) | [9–12] yrs (N) | [12–15] yrs (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | 1808 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 3.7 | 311 | 425 | 458 | 390 | 223 |
| Females | 1740 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 3.6 | 297 | 410 | 437 | 421 | 176 |
| Total | 3548 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 3.7 | 608 | 835 | 895 | 811 | 399 |
Variables used for the study of the Infectious environment (INF-E).
The past exposure of patients was studied for measles, mumps, varicella, influenza like illnesses, and acute diarrheas during different exposure windows. It was abstracted using two methods: “cumulative” is the total of the regional incidences around the case during the window. “high” is the mean of the 10 largest regional incidences to which the patients or the VC were exposed. See Material and Methods, and S2 File for details on the measures of environmental infectious exposures.
| Exposure window (method) | Influenza like illnesses exposure | Measles exposure | Mumps exposure | Varicella exposure | Acute diarrheas exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INF-E1 | INF-E21 | INF-E33 | INF-E45 | INF-E57 | |
| INF-E2 | INF-E22 | INF-E34 | INF-E46 | INF-E58 | |
| INF-E3 | INF-E23 | INF-E35 | INF-E47 | INF-E59 | |
| INF-E4 | INF-E24 | INF-E36 | INF-E48 | INF-E60 | |
| INF-E5 | INF-E25 | INF-E37 | INF-E49 | INF-E61 | |
| INF-E6 | INF-E26 | INF-E38 | INF-E50 | INF-E62 | |
| INF-E7 | INF-E27 | INF-E39 | INF-E51 | INF-E63 | |
| INF-E8 | INF-E28 | INF-E40 | INF-E52 | INF-E64 | |
| INF-E9 | INF-E29 | INF-E41 | INF-E53 | INF-E65 | |
| INF-E10 | INF-E30 | INF-E42 | INF-E54 | INF-E66 | |
| INF-E11 | INF-E31 | INF-E43 | INF-E55 | INF-E67 | |
| INF-E12 | INF-E32 | INF-E44 | INF-E56 | INF-E68 | |
| INF-E13 | - | - | - | INF-E69 | |
| INF-E14 | - | - | - | INF-E70 | |
| INF-E15 | - | - | - | INF-E71 | |
| INF-E16 | - | - | - | INF-E72 | |
| INF-E17 | - | - | - | INF-E73 | |
| INF-E18 | - | - | - | INF-E74 | |
| INF-E19 | - | - | - | INF-E75 | |
| INF-E20 | - | - | - | INF-E76 |
Fig 1Analysis of the infectious environment of T1D in the Isis-Diab cohort compared with virtual controls.
Red/ blue dots indicate that the patients were more/less exposed than the controls. The two lines stand for tests significance at the 0.05 level without (bottom line) and with (upper line) Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (see Table 2 for the definition of INF-E variables).
SNPs found associated with an environmental exposure to infectious diseases.
The SNPs listed are those for which the p-value of the final test was classified as « indicative » of a possible association (p<10−7, see Material and Methods). The 2 SNPs that survived the Bonferroni correction are indicated in bold.
| 11 | rs7480811 | Recessive | 4.57E-8 | 0.3350 | ||
| 11 | rs35611816 | Recessive | 1.34E-7 | 0.9839 | ||
| 16 | rs112398774 | General | 7.99E-8 | 0.5858 | ||
| 16 | rs73500787 | General | 1.13E-7 | 0.8273 | ||
| 16 | rs7191886 | General | 1.16E-7 | 0.8491 | ||
| 16 | rs112398774 | Dominant | 5.07E-8 | 0.3714 | ||
| 16 | rs73500787 | Dominant | 7.43E-8 | 0.5448 | ||
| 16 | rs7191886 | Dominant | 7.92E-8 | 0.5806 | ||
| 11 | rs7480811 | Recessive | 2.35E-8 | 0.1719 | ||
| 11 | rs35611816 | Recessive | 4.25E-8 | 0.3111 | ||
| 11 | rs34123790 | Recessive | 4.58E-8 | 0.3354 | ||
| 11 | rs570887 | Recessive | 9.05E-8 | 0.6636 | ||
| 11 | rs503156 | Recessive | 9.86E-8 | 0.7225 | ||
| 11 | rs535752 | Recessive | 9.86E-8 | 0.7225 | ||
| 11 | rs491618 | Recessive | 1.06E-7 | 0.7757 | ||
| 15 | rs77378263 | Recessive | 3.06E-8 | 0.2240 | ||
| 5 | rs115236876 | General | 1.24E-7 | 0.9107 | ||
| 6 | rs149303805 | Dominant | 1.07E-7 | 0.7871 | ||
| 15 | rs3759862 | Recessive | 3.27E-8 | 0.2400 | ||
| 9 | rs11788668 | Recessive | 4.69E-8 | 0.3434 | ||
| 4 | rs56089258 | Recessive | 8.15E-8 | 0.5971 | ||
| 6 | rs34706906 | Recessive | 1.92E-8 | 0.1408 | ||
| 12 | rs138806781 | Recessive | 2.40E-8 | 0.1759 | ||
| 5 | rs115736953 | Recessive | 3.35E-8 | 0.2455 | ||
| 10 | chr10:73778256:I | Recessive | 3.87E-8 | 0.2833 | ||
| 12 | rs79202071 | Recessive | 6.23E-8 | 0.4569 | ||
| 12 | rs11067453 | Recessive | 6.39E-8 | 0.4680 | ||
| 7 | rs3847106 | Recessive | 1.24E-7 | 0.9100 | ||
| 5 | rs140631408 | Recessive | 1.27E-7 | 0.9316 | ||
| 7 | rs371617 | Recessive | 3.87E-8 | 0.2837 | ||
| 7 | rs445489 | Recessive | 3.92E-08 | 0.2873 |
Fig 2Manhattan Plot showing the SNPs associated with an environmental exposure to varicella.
The exposure is the cumulated incidence of chickenpox before age 3yrs computed at the place of birth. The grey line indicates the significance level (p = 1.4/10−8) considered as possibly indicating an association at birth. The two SNPs above the red line (located in Chromosome 4) passed the Bonferroni correction (p<7.1 x 10−9).