| Literature DB >> 33841421 |
Jiang Li1, Yanfei Zhang2, Alexandria L Jilg3, Donna M Wolk4, Harshit S Khara5, Amy Kolinovsky6, David D K Rolston3, Raquel Hontecillas7, Josep Bassaganya-Riera7, Marc S Williams2, Vida Abedi1, Ming Ta Michael Lee2.
Abstract
Background: Clostridioides difficile is a major cause of healthcare-associated and community-acquired diarrhea. Host genetic susceptibility to Clostridioides difficile infection has not been studied on a large-scale.Entities:
Keywords: C4a; Clostridioides difficile; GWAS; MICA; NOTCH4
Year: 2021 PMID: 33841421 PMCID: PMC8026859 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.638913
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1Flowchart of the study. Yellow box: Genotyping and imputation was conducted separately for Phase I and II. Blue box: eMERGE CDI algorithm was applied to identify cases and controls. Clinical information was extracted. Green box: individual GWAS and meta-analyses, followed by a sensitivity analysis and Fine-mapping.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of cohorts from phase I, phase II and antibiotics subgroup for CDI GWAS.
| Phase I (11,786) | Phase II (3,518) | Antibiotic subgroup (3,753) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case (946) | Control (10840) | P value | Case (214) | Control (3304) | P value | Case (587) | Control (3166) | P value | |
|
| 414 (43.8) | 4126 (38.1) | 0.001 | 68 (31.8) | 1079 (32.7) | 0.79 | 245 (41.7) | 1040 (32.8) | 3.76E-05 |
|
| 60.3 ± 17.7 | 59.0± 19.2 | 0.041 | 52.7 ± 18.0 | 49.0 ± 18.7 | 0.005 | 61.0 ± 17.1 | 55.6 ± 18.9 | 7.67E-11 |
|
| 480 (50.7) | 2294 (21.2) | 5.58E-94 | 107 (50) | 872 (26.4) | 8.14E-14 | / | / | / |
|
| 88 (9.3) | 998 (9.2) | 0.922 | 15 (7) | 454 (13.7) | 0.005 | 60 (10.2) | 535 (16.9) | 4.74E-05 |
|
| 398 (42.1) | 2944 (27.2) | 1.68E-22 | 67 (31.3) | 818 (24.8) | 0.032 | 262 (44.6) | 1175 (37.1) | 0.001 |
|
| 288 (30.6) | 2137 (19.7) | 2.50E-15 | 51 (23.8) | 691 (20.9) | 0.311 | 196 (33.4) | 1027 (32.4) | 0.651 |
|
| 16 (1.7) | 75 (0.7) | 0.001 | 1 (0.5) | 14 (0.4) | 0.924 | 3 (0.5) | 15 (0.5) | 0.904 |
|
| 52 (5.5) | 432 (4.0) | 0.023 | 3 (1.4) | 75 (2.3) | 0.403 | 22 (3.7) | 127 (4) | 0.764 |
|
| 81 (8.6) | 218 (2.0) | 1.03E-34 | 30 (14.0) | 60 (1.8) | 6.15E-28 | 36 (6.1) | 59 (1.9) | 1.46E-09 |
|
| 370 (39.3) | 3685 (34.0) | 0.001 | 42 (19.6) | 630 (19.1) | 0.84 | 224 (38.2) | 1009 (31.9) | 0.003 |
ANOVA was adopted to test the significance of index age and Chi-square test was adopted to test all other variables. IBD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease; PPI, proton pump inhibitors; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus.
Figure 2Manhattan and QQ plots for GWAS results associated with CDI in antibiotic treated patients with European ancestry. A linear mixed model regression adjusted for the covariates including sex, cohort, PPI, chemotherapy, T2DM, and Index Age were conducted by BOLT-LMM. Top variants with original p value < 5×10-8 were labeled. The genomic inflation factor, λGC, equals to 1.004, suggesting no evidence for systematic inflation of genome-wide test statistics.
Top CDI-associated variants in the antibiotic subgroup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs114751021 | 6:31504194 | G/A | 0.024 | 2.41 (1.84, 3.09) | 4.50E-08 | 4.35E-07 |
|
| rs6948305 | 7:109757108 | G/C | 0.014 | 2.72 (1.95, 3.67) | 3.90E-07 | 3.36E-06 |
|
| rs114995101 | 13:105278211 | G/C | 0.020 | 2.42 (1.8, 3.17) | 4.90E-07 | 1.45E-06 |
|
| rs146508039 | 6:31065037 | T/C | 0.025 | 2.24 (1.7, 2.88) | 4.90E-07 | 2.30E-06 |
|
| rs78701439 | 7:9147962 | A/G | 0.017 | 2.55 (1.86, 3.39) | 4.90E-07 | 3.99E-06 |
|
| rs115062572 | 6:31862876 | T/C | 0.022 | 2.29 (1.7, 2.98) | 1.40E-06 | 5.07E-06 |
|
| rs140966705 | 4:75272518 | C/T | 0.041 | 1.85 (1.47, 2.28) | 2.10E-06 | 3.03E-06 |
|
| rs1419054 | 6:107084941 | A/G | 0.115 | 0.59 (0.43, 0.75) | 3.80E-06 | 6.90E-06 |
|
| rs146471836 | 6:93817042 | T/C | 0.026 | 2.11 (1.59, 2.72) | 3.90E-06 | 6.40E-06 |
|
| rs183570761 | 11:127597987 | T/C | 0.017 | 2.38 (1.72, 3.17) | 4.10E-06 | 1.75E-05 |
|
| rs4142260 | 9:38389514 | T/C | 0.466 | 0.74 (0.65, 0.84) | 5.10E-06 | 2.64E-07 |
|
| rs116838950 | 4:37279460 | C/T | 0.013 | 2.65 (1.84, 3.66) | 5.30E-06 | 1.92E-05 |
|
| rs56040707 | 1:159521992 | G/A | 0.027 | 2.04 (1.55, 2.62) | 5.40E-06 | 9.79E-06 |
|
| rs3740779 | 11:76372052 | A/G | 0.360 | 0.73 (0.63, 0.84) | 5.50E-06 | 3.84E-06 |
|
| rs17586705 | 18:1771063 | T/C | 0.176 | 1.42 (1.23, 1.64) | 6.80E-06 | 9.59E-06 |
|
| rs118090546 | 15:77177855 | T/G | 0.012 | 2.65 (1.84, 3.69) | 7.20E-06 | 2.63E-05 |
|
| rs73462173 | 18:69354422 | G/A | 0.114 | 0.59 (0.44, 0.76) | 7.50E-06 | 7.98E-06 |
|
| rs4294047 | 6:31101583 | A/G | 0.103 | 1.53 (1.28, 1.8) | 7.80E-06 | 1.21E-05 |
|
| rs11121431 | 1:9556558 | G/A | 0.033 | 1.92 (1.48, 2.42) | 7.90E-06 | 2.43E-05 |
|
| rs72675948 | 8:116048007 | T/C | 0.027 | 2.07 (1.56, 2.68) | 8.10E-06 | 2.05E-05 |
|
| rs146426342 | 2:119924607 | G/A | 0.013 | 2.54 (1.78, 3.48) | 8.20E-06 | 2.64E-05 |
|
| rs115611612 | 2:112938351 | A/T | 0.063 | 1.66 (1.35, 2) | 8.40E-06 | 1.16E-05 |
|
Variants with p value < 1×10-5 in the antibiotic subgroup after clumping are listed. Genomic coordinates are based on hg19 version. Minor allele (A1) is the effect allele. SNVs locating in the MHC region are highlighted in red. MAF, minor allele frequency; P_BOLT, p values from BLOT_LMM; P_SAIGE, p values from SAIGE.
Figure 3Fine-mapping of the top loci. X-axis represents the tissue types (black indicates GI-tissue). Y-axis represent the genes. Genes that appear in both eCAVIAR and MetaXcan are in blood. (A) Colocalization of the 4 lead SNVs at the MHC region. The dot size represents the maximum CLPP values in the corresponding locus and tissues. The color represents different locus for each lead SNV. (B) MetaXcan associations of the MHC region with CDI in antibiotic subgroup. The size of the dots represents the significance of the association between predicted expression and the CDI in patients exposed to high-risk antibiotics. Red indicates positive correlation while blue negative. Darker color indicates larger genetic component and consequently more active regulation in the tissue (R2 is a model performance measure computed as the correlation squared between observed and predicted expression, cross validated in the training set). Only associations with p<0.01 were shown.