| Literature DB >> 30059533 |
Ruey-Yun Wang1,2, Hsiu-Ju Chen3, Chieh-Liang Huang2,4,5, Jiun-Yi Wang6, Tsui-Er Lee7, Hsiang-Yen Lee8, Chin-Chuan Hung3,9.
Abstract
Opioid addiction is a major public health issue worldwide. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is used to detoxify users of illicit opiates, but drug relapse is common and associated with poor quality of life (QoL). This study investigated the associations between the GRIN3A, GRM6, and TPH2 genetic variants and QoL in the MMT population. A total of 319 participants were included in the study, and genotyping of GRIN3A, GRM6, and TPH2 genes was performed using the Sequenom iPLEX. Associations between genotypes and the domains of QoL were examined through posthoc analysis with LSMEANS syntax using SAS 9.1.3. The single nucleotide polymorphisms rs9325202 and rs1487275 in the TPH2 gene were significantly associated with the QoL domain of physical functioning. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model revealed that the risk allele rs1487275-G was significantly correlated with the domain of physical functioning when clinical characteristics were considered as covariates. The results of the present study illuminate the importance of the genetic basis of QoL in the MMT population, and suggest that genotypes should be considered as a potential QoL indicator.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30059533 PMCID: PMC6066242 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201408
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic data of included subjects of methadone maintenance therapy.
| Maxdose≦55 mg | 56 mg<Maxdose<99 mg | Maxdose≧100 mg | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | N | Mean±SD | N | Mean±SD | N | Mean±SD | ||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 77 | (30.43%) | 119 | (47.04%) | 57 | (22.53%) | 0.3726 | |
| Female | 22 | (33.33%) | 25 | (37.88%) | 19 | (28.79%) | ||
| Education level | ||||||||
| Elementary school or less | 5 | (23.81%) | 12 | (57.14%) | 4 | (19.05%) | 0.5707 | |
| Junior high school | 48 | (33.57%) | 65 | (45.45%) | 30 | (20.98%) | ||
| Senior high school | 46 | (29.68%) | 67 | (43.23%) | 42 | (27.10%) | ||
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Never-married | 55 | (30.39%) | 78 | (43.09%) | 48 | (26.52%) | 0.6488 | |
| Married | 24 | (35.29%) | 31 | (45.59%) | 13 | (19.12%) | ||
| Divorce | 19 | (29.69%) | 32 | (50.00%) | 13 | (20.31%) | ||
| Age | 99 | 42.23±7.13 | 144 | 42.88±7.52 | 76 | 40.38±7.15 | 0.0554 | |
| SGOT | 93 | 40.43±38.73 | 140 | 42.75±29.25 | 74 | 46.89±59.15 | 0.5967 | |
| SGPT | 93 | 48.25±43.48 | 139 | 55.02±52.59 | 74 | 57.16±74.35 | 0.5425 | |
| rGT | 92 | 45.96±61.84 | 135 | 37.46±28.35 | 74 | 37.64±51.24 | 0.3524 | |
| BMI | 91 | 22.90±3.15 | 133 | 22.85±2.90 | 72 | 22.34±2.40 | 0.4003 | |
| Items of SF-36 | ||||||||
| Physical Function | 92 | 25.04±5.30 | 136 | 24.42±4.71 | 73 | 24.34±4.38 | 0.5560 | |
| Role-Physical | 91 | 5.66±1.69 | 135 | 5.24±1.48 | 73 | 5.26±1.61 | 0.1142 | |
| Bodily Pain | 92 | 9.30±1.76 | 139 | 8.85±2.12 | 73 | 9.01±1.69 | 0.2101 | |
| General Health | 91 | 14.41±3.38 | 137 | 14.19±3.72 | 72 | 13.16±3.32 | 0.0575 | |
| Vitality | 90 | 13.70±3.19 | 136 | 13.35±2.89 | 72 | 13.08±3.26 | 0.4370 | |
| Social Functioning | 91 | 6.60±1.65 | 138 | 6.34±1.41 | 72 | 6.56±1.48 | 0.3718 | |
| Role-Emotional | 91 | 4.08±1.22 | 135 | 3.82±1.16 | 73 | 4.07±1.33 | 0.2105 | |
| Mental Health | 90 | 18.17±3.74 | 136 | 17.36±3.14 | 72 | 17.58±4.21 | 0.2542 | |
Note: Data in parentheses are shown in percentage.
SGOT: serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase; SGPT: serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase; rGT: r-glutamyl transferase; BMI: body mass index
Associations between TPH2, GRIN3A, and GRM6 genotypes and QoL of participants.
| Gene | SNP | Allele | Physical Functioning | P-value | Role-Phusical | P-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSMEANS | Lower | Upper | LSMEANS | Lower | Upper | |||||
| rs7030238 | A vs C | 1.01 | -2.22 | 4.25 | 0.6557 | 0.28 | -0.78 | 1.34 | 0.7828 | |
| rs1983812 | G vs A | 0.38 | -2.06 | 2.82 | 0.7803 | 0.73 | -0.06 | 1.52 | ||
| rs942142 | C vs A | 2.97 | -1.34 | 7.28 | 0.2368 | 1.34 | -0.02 | 2.70 | 0.0520 | |
| rs10512285 | G vs A | 2.67 | -0.82 | 6.16 | 0.1454 | 1.08 | -0.08 | 2.24 | 0.0605 | |
| rs3983721 | C vs T | 0.77 | -1.32 | 2.85 | 0.5851 | 0.48 | -0.21 | 1.16 | 0.1773 | |
| rs17078853 | T vs G | 0.97 | -3.61 | 5.55 | 0.5025 | 0.39 | -1.09 | 1.88 | ||
| rs2071247 | A vs G | 0.63 | -1.60 | 2.87 | 0.7841 | 0.27 | -0.46 | 1.00 | 0.6663 | |
| rs17078877 | A vs G | 1.03 | -3.46 | 5.51 | 0.3988 | 0.40 | -1.09 | 1.89 | 0.0695 | |
| rs11746675 | T vs C | 0.57 | -1.85 | 2.99 | 0.7604 | 0.19 | -0.60 | 0.98 | 0.0614 | |
| rs2067011 | T vs C | 0.39 | -2.12 | 2.90 | 0.8880 | 0.18 | -0.60 | 0.97 | 0.4310 | |
| rs2071247 | A vs G | 0.63 | -1.60 | 2.87 | 0.2411 | 0.27 | -0.46 | 1.00 | 0.8325 | |
| rs1386493 | T vs C | 0.28 | -3.74 | 4.31 | 0.3198 | 0.70 | -0.63 | 2.04 | 0.3598 | |
| rs2171363 | C vs T | 0.62 | -1.50 | 2.74 | 0.2991 | 0.11 | -0.60 | 0.83 | 0.7634 | |
| rs7305115 | G vs A | 0.62 | -1.55 | 2.79 | 0.3148 | 0.22 | -0.50 | 0.94 | 0.4773 | |
| rs10506645 | C vs T | 1.98 | -0.34 | 4.30 | 0.1077 | 0.35 | -0.42 | 1.12 | 0.3524 | |
| rs4760820 | G vs C | 0.51 | -7.97 | 9.00 | 0.9845 | 2.13 | -0.62 | 4.88 | 0.1508 | |
| rs9325202 | G vs A | 2.32 | 0.17 | 4.46 | 0.51 | -0.20 | 1.22 | 0.1044 | ||
| rs1487275 | T vs G | 2.64 | 0.03 | 5.26 | 0.60 | -0.26 | 1.46 | 0.1593 | ||
*p<0.05 denoted statistical significance.
Fig 1The genomic location and linkage disequilibrium pattern of the GRIN3A genetic polymorphisms included in this study.
Genomic locations of the genetic polymorphisms on chromosome 9. Haploview 4.2 software was used to estimate the linkage disequilibrium blocks. The R2 values were shown in squares; range from 0.03 to 0.90 and higher values indicate higher degree of correlation.
Fig 2The genomic location and linkage disequilibrium pattern of the GRM6 genetic polymorphisms included in this study.
Genomic locations of the genetic polymorphisms on chromosome 5. Haploview 4.2 software was used to estimate the linkage disequilibrium blocks. The R2 values were shown in squares; range from 0.01 to 0.98 and higher values indicate higher degree of correlation.
Fig 3The genomic location and linkage disequilibrium pattern of the TPH2 genetic polymorphisms included in this study.
Genomic locations of the genetic polymorphisms on chromosome 12. Haploview 4.2 software was used to estimate the linkage disequilibrium blocks. The R2 values were shown in squares; range from 0 to 0.95 and higher values indicate higher degree of correlation.
Associations between GRIN3A and TPH2 haplotypes and QoL of participants.
| Gene | haplotype | haplotype | Physical Functioning | Role-Physical | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSMEANS | Lower CL | Upper CL | LSMEANS | Lower CL | Upper CL | |||
| rs942142- | C-G/C-G vs A-A/C-A | 0.83 | -5.90 | 7.56 | 0.92 | -1.30 | 3.13 | |
| rs10512285 | C-G/C-G vs A-A/C-G | 2.32 | -1.88 | 6.53 | 1.15 | -0.23 | 2.53 | |
| C-G/C-G vs A-A/A-A | 2.74 | -1.29 | 6.76 | 1.09 | -0.24 | 2.41 | ||
| A-A/C-A vs A-A/C-G | 1.49 | -4.23 | 7.21 | 0.24 | -1.64 | 2.12 | ||
| A-A/C-A vs A-A/A-A | 1.90 | -3.69 | 7.50 | 0.17 | -1.67 | 2.01 | ||
| A-A/C-G vs A-A/A-A | 0.41 | -1.50 | 2.33 | 0.07 | -0.56 | 0.69 | ||
| rs9325202- | G-T/G-T vs A-T/G-T | 0.21 | -3.94 | 4.37 | -0.51 | -1.88 | 0.86 | |
| rs1487275 | G-T/G-T vs A-G/G-T | 0.44 | -2.35 | 3.23 | 0.08 | -0.85 | 1.00 | |
| G-T/G-T vs A-G/A-G | 2.00 | -2.21 | 6.22 | 0.28 | -1.10 | 1.67 | ||
| G-T/G-T vs G-G/G-T | 2.36 | -4.00 | 8.73 | 0.23 | -1.87 | 2.32 | ||
| G-T/G-T vs A-G/A-T | 2.49 | -1.95 | 6.93 | 0.64 | -0.82 | 2.10 | ||
| G-T/G-T vs A-T/A-T | 4.25 | -13.96 | 22.46 | 1.45 | -4.55 | 7.45 | ||
| G-T/G-T vs A-G/G-G | 5.92 | -4.72 | 16.56 | 0.78 | -2.72 | 4.29 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs G-T/G-T | -0.21 | -4.37 | 3.94 | 0.51 | -0.86 | 1.88 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs A-G/G-T | 0.23 | -3.86 | 4.32 | 0.59 | -0.77 | 1.94 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs A-G/A-G | 1.79 | -3.38 | 6.96 | 0.79 | -0.91 | 2.50 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs G-G/G-T | 2.15 | -4.88 | 9.19 | 0.74 | -1.58 | 3.05 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs A-G/A-T | 2.28 | -3.08 | 7.63 | 1.15 | -0.61 | 2.91 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs A-T/A-T | 4.04 | -14.41 | 22.49 | 1.96 | -4.12 | 8.04 | ||
| A-T/G-T vs A-G/G-G | 5.71 | -5.35 | 16.76 | 1.29 | -2.35 | 4.93 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs G-T/G-T | -0.44 | -3.23 | 2.35 | -0.08 | -1.00 | 0.85 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs A-T/G-T | -0.23 | -4.32 | 3.86 | -0.59 | -1.94 | 0.77 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs A-G/A-G | 1.56 | -2.60 | 5.72 | 0.21 | -1.16 | 1.58 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs G-G/G-T | 1.92 | -4.40 | 8.25 | 0.15 | -1.93 | 2.24 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs A-G/A-T | 2.05 | -2.34 | 6.43 | 0.57 | -0.88 | 2.01 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs A-T/A-T | 3.81 | -14.39 | 22.01 | 1.38 | -4.62 | 7.37 | ||
| A-G/G-T vs A-G/G-G | 5.48 | -5.14 | 16.10 | 0.71 | -2.79 | 4.21 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs G-T/G-T | -2.00 | -6.22 | 2.21 | -0.28 | -1.67 | 1.10 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs A-T/G-T | -1.79 | -6.96 | 3.38 | -0.79 | -2.50 | 0.91 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs A-G/G-T | -1.56 | -5.72 | 2.60 | -0.21 | -1.58 | 1.16 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs G-G/G-T | 0.36 | -6.71 | 7.43 | -0.06 | -2.38 | 2.27 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs A-G/A-T | 0.49 | -4.92 | 5.90 | 0.36 | -1.42 | 2.14 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs A-T/A-T | 2.25 | -16.22 | 20.72 | 1.17 | -4.92 | 7.25 | ||
| A-G/A-G vs A-G/G-G | 3.92 | -7.16 | 15.00 | 0.50 | -3.15 | 4.15 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs G-T/G-T | -2.36 | -8.73 | 4.00 | -0.23 | -2.32 | 1.87 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs A-T/G-T | -2.15 | -9.19 | 4.88 | -0.74 | -3.05 | 1.58 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs A-G/G-T | -1.92 | -8.25 | 4.40 | -0.15 | -2.24 | 1.93 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs A-G/A-G | -0.36 | -7.43 | 6.71 | 0.06 | -2.27 | 2.38 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs A-G/A-T | 0.13 | -7.08 | 7.34 | 0.41 | -1.96 | 2.79 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs A-T/A-T | 1.89 | -17.19 | 20.96 | 1.22 | -5.06 | 7.50 | ||
| G-G/G-T vs A-G/G-G | 3.56 | -8.51 | 15.62 | 0.56 | -3.42 | 4.53 | ||
| A-G/A-T vs G-T/G-T | -2.49 | -6.93 | 1.95 | -0.64 | -2.10 | 0.82 | ||
Fig 4The LASSO regression model.
(a) A risk factor rs1487275_G was selected in the LASSO regression model. (b) No risk factor was selected in the LASSO regression model to predict Role-Physical of QoL.