| Literature DB >> 30112393 |
Lu Zhou1, Xinjie Hui2, Huijuan Yuan3, Yinglin Liu4, Yejun Wang2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the possible association between known genetic risks and preeclampsia in a Han Chinese population.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30112393 PMCID: PMC6077688 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4808046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
SNPs included in the study and their allele contribution to PE.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| rs4646994 | Del | Not sig. |
|
| rs699 | C | Not sig. |
| rs4762 | T | T | |
|
| rs429358 | C | Not sig. |
| rs7412 | T | T | |
|
| rs5186 | C | Not sig. |
|
| rs231775 | G | Not sig. |
|
| rs1051740 | C | Not sig. |
|
| rs2549782 | G | G |
|
| rs1799963 | A | — |
|
| rs602 | A | Not sig. |
| rs6025 | A | Not sig. | |
|
| rs1695 | G | Not sig. |
|
| rs5742620 | A | — |
|
| rs1800896 | G | G |
|
| rs1800590 | G | — |
| rs268 | G | — | |
|
| rs1801133 | T | Not sig. |
|
| 27bp-VNTR in intron 4 | 4a | Not sig. |
| rs2070744 | C | C | |
| rs1799983 | T | Not sig. | |
|
| rs1799889 | G | — |
|
| rs4986790 | G | — |
| rs4986791 | T | — | |
|
| rs1800629 | A | A |
| rs1799724 | T | T | |
|
| rs3025039 | T | Not sig. |
1The minor allele at the locus without polymorphism is represented with ‘—'; not significant allele or genotype composition difference between patients with PE and controls is indicated with “not sig.” (chi-square test, P ≥ 0.1). For significant (P < 0.05) or marginally significant (P ≥ 0.05 and < 0.1) ones, the PE-contributing minor alleles are shown.
Figure 1Difference in age composition between patients with PE and controls. The percentages of patients with PE (red) and controls (CT, black) at different ages (years) are shown.
Figure 2Difference in BMI distribution between PE patients and controls. The percentages of patients with PE (red) and controls (CT, black) with different BMIs (kg / m2) are shown.
Genotype contribution to PE in the Han Chinese population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs25497822 | TT | 42 | 99 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 2.83 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 1.06 | 0.45 |
| TG | 88 | 134 | ||||||||
| GG | 26 | 52 | ||||||||
| rs16952 | AA | 124 | 211 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 1.79 | 0.18 | 1.38 | 2.20 | 0.86 |
| AG | 26 | 67 | ||||||||
| GG | 6 | 8 | ||||||||
|
| TT | 149 | 284 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 7.26 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.03 |
| TC | 6 | 2 | ||||||||
| CC | 1 | 0 | ||||||||
|
| AA | 120 | 248 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 6.29 | 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.87 | 0.32 |
| AG | 32 | 32 | ||||||||
| GG | 3 | 6 | ||||||||
|
| GG | 139 | 235 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 3.73 | 0.05 | 1.77 | 3.19 | 0.99 |
| GA | 16 | 47 | ||||||||
| AA | 1 | 4 | ||||||||
|
| CC | 92 | 205 | 0.59 | 0.72 | 7.39 | 0.01 | 0.57 | 0.86 | 0.38 |
| CT | 61 | 78 | ||||||||
| TT | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
|
| CC | 133 | 219 | 0.85 | 0.77 | 4.69 | 0.03 | 1.77 | 2.98 | 1.05 |
| CT | 23 | 62 | ||||||||
| TT | 0 | 5 | ||||||||
| rs74122 | CC | 129 | 252 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 2.81 | 0.09 | 0.63 | 1.09 | 0.36 |
| CT | 27 | 32 | ||||||||
| TT | 0 | 1 |
1The SNP loci showed significant (chi-square test, P < 0.05; indicated in italic) or marginally significant (chi-square test, P ≥ 0.05 and < 0.1) difference in genotype composition between PE and control groups, except rs1695, for which the difference was not (marginally) significant but showed contribution to PE in multilocus interaction analysis and prediction models. 2The 90% confidence interval (upper and lower) for the OR of these SNPs was also calculated: 0.88 and 0.57 for rs2549782, 1.97 and 1.01 for rs1695, 3.01 and 1.22 for rs1800629, and 0.90 and 0.49 for rs7412, respectively. PE# and CT#, the number of patients with PE and controls, respectively; PE_ and CT_major#, the number of patients with PE and controls with the major genotype, respectively; OR, odd ratio; 95%_upper and lower, the 95% upper and lower confidence limits, respectively.
Interaction among multiple polymorphic loci.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs1799724 | 0.5639 | 0.5645 | 10/10 | 7 (0.1719) |
| rs1800896 and rs1799724 | 0.5978 | 0.5592 | 9/10 | 8 (0.0547) |
| rs1800896, rs1800629, and rs1799724 | 0.6163 | 0.5196 | 4/10 | 6 (0.3770) |
| rs2549782, rs1695, rs1800896, and rs1799724 | 0.6391 | 0.5052 | 3/10 | 6 (0.3770) |
| rs2549782, rs1695, rs1800896, rs1799724, and rs4762 | 0.6714 | 0.5362 | 8/10 | 7 (0.1719) |
| rs2549782, rs1695, rs1800896, rs1800629, rs1799724, and rs4762 | 0.7030 | 0.5691 | 8/10 | 8 (0.0547) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rs2549782, rs1695, rs2070744, rs1800896, rs1800629, rs1799724, rs4762, and rs7412 | 0.7378 | 0.5633 | 10/10 | 8 (0.0547) |
1Only the best interaction models with no larger than eight features are shown. The significant and best model is shown in bold.
“Training Bal. Acc,” training balanced accuracy; “Testing Bal. Acc,” testing balanced accuracy; “CV consistency,” 10-fold cross-validation consistency.
Figure 3An example of the contribution of interaction among seven alleles to PE risk. The positive and negative contributions are shown in dark and light gray, respectively.
Contribution to PE risks in the Han Chinese population based on the logistic model of eight SNPs.
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. error | z value | Pr(>|z|) | Sign. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.9932 | 1.0322 | 1.931 | 0.05348 | . |
| rs2549782 | –0.3618 | 0.2291 | –1.579 | 0.11435 | |
| rs1695 | 0.2951 | 0.2496 | 1.182 | 0.23718 | |
| rs2070744 | –-2.03 | 0.8283 | –2.451 | 0.01425 |
|
| rs1800896 | –0.7913 | 0.2715 | –2.914 | 0.00357 |
|
| rs1800629 | 0.4985 | 0.3116 | 1.6 | 0.10963 | |
| rs1799724 | –0.6314 | 0.2193 | –2.879 | 0.00399 |
|
| rs4762 | 0.5468 | 0.2761 | 1.98 | 0.04765 |
|
| rs7412 | –0.6265 | 0.2937 | –2.133 | 0.03291 |
|
∗P < 0.05; P < 0.1.
∗∗P < 0.01.
∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Average performance of different models based on training-testing evaluations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP8 | Eight SNPs | 0.465 | 0.789 | 0.674 | 0.618 |
| SNP5 | Five SNPs | 0.303 | 0.852 | 0.658 | 0.603 |
| Age | Age | 0.591 | 0.677 | 0.633 | 0.598 |
| SNP8Age | Eight SNPs, Age | 0.504 | 0.856 | 0.749 | 0.687 |
Figure 4ROC curves of PE risk prediction models. For each type of model, the full curve represents the average performance of fivefold training-testing results, while the dashed curves represent individual performance. “Neutral” means the random situation with 50% AUC of ROC curve.