| Literature DB >> 34984025 |
Ahmad H Mufti1, Imad A AlJahdali2, Nasser A Elhawary1, Samar N Ekram1, Iman Abumansour1, Ikhlas A Sindi3, Hind Naffadi4, Ezzeldin N Elhawary5, Najiah M Alyamani6, Ghydda Alghamdi1, Wafaa Alosaimi7, Ghufran Rawas8, Amaal Alharbi9, Mohammed T Tayeb1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The antigen processing 1 (TAP1) and proteasome 20S subunit beta 9 (PSMB9) genes are associated with strong susceptibility to many autoimmune diseases. Here, we explored whether TAP1/PSMB9 genetic variants, individually or combined, affected susceptibility to the complex, autoimmune-based skin disorder vitiligo.Entities:
Keywords: TAP1/PSMB9; TaqMan genotyping; linkage disequilibrium; single nucleotide polymorphisms; vitiligo
Year: 2021 PMID: 34984025 PMCID: PMC8702990 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S341079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Gen Med ISSN: 1178-7074
Figure 1Participant eligibility and applied methodology.
Figure 2Clinico-epidemiologic profile of vitiligo cases. (A) Frequencies of age at onset and age at examination by age interval. (B) Frequencies of demographic and clinical characteristics.
Allele Frequencies and Genotype Distributions of TAP1 rs1135216 A>G (D637G) and PSMB9 rs17587 G>A (R60H) Polymorphic Loci in Vitiligo
| Genetic Model | Interactive Genotype | Vitiligo Cases n = 172 | Controls | Logistic Regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | AIC | |||||
| Codominant | D/D | 4 (2.3) | 33 (25.6) | 1 | ||
| D/G | 84 (48.8) | 95 (73.6) | NA (0.00-NA) | < 0.0001 | 87.8 | |
| G/G | 84 (48.8) | 1 (0.7) | NA (0.00-NA) | |||
| Dominant | G/G | 84 (48.8) | 1 (0.7) | 1 | <0.0001 | 91.0 |
| D/G-D/D | 88 (51.2) | 128 (99.2) | NA (0.00-NA) | |||
| G/G-D/G | 168 (97.7) | 96 (74.4) | 1 | 115.5 | ||
| 4 (2.3) | 33 (25.6) | 16.4 (2.0–138.0) | ||||
| Overdominant | G/G-D/D | 88 (51.2) | 34 (26.4) | 1 | 120.9 | |
| D/G | 84 (48.8) | 95 (73.6) | 3.2 (1.3–8.2) | |||
| — | — | — | 37.1 (5.0–277.2) | <0.0001 | 88.8 | |
| Allele: | D | 92 (0.27) 252 | 161 (0.62) | 1 (reference) | ||
| G | (0.73) | 97 (0.38) | 4.6 (3.2–6.5) | |||
| Codominant | R/R | 68 (39.5) | 72 (55.8) | 1 | ||
| R/H | 68 (39.5) | 54 (41.9) | 1.7 (0.3–1.8) | 118.5 | ||
| H/H | 36 (20.9) | 3 (2.3) | 0.1 (0.01–0.6) | |||
| Dominant | R/R | 68 (39.5) | 72 (55.8) | 1 | ||
| R/H-H/H | 104 (60.5) | 57 (44.2) | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) | 0.12 | 122.8 | |
| Recessive | R/R-R/H | 140 (81.4) | 126 (97.7) | 1 | ||
| H/H | 32 (18.6) | 3 (2.3) | 0.1 (0.01–0.7) | 117.0 | ||
| Overdominant | R/R-H/H | 100 (58.1) | 75 (60.5) | 1 | ||
| R/H | 72 (41.9) | 54 (39.5) | 1.1 (0.5–2.5) | 0.82 | 125.2 | |
| — | — | — | 0.6 (0.2–1.2) | 119.2 | ||
| Allele: | R | 208 (0.61) | 198 (0.77) | 1 (reference) | ||
| 136 (0.40) | 60 (0.23) | 2.2 (1.5–3.1) | ||||
Notes: Bold numbers, statistically significant associations (P < 0.05).
Abbreviations: NA, not available; TAP1, transport associated with antigen processing; PSMB9, proteasome subunit beta type-9 (known as 20S proteasome subunit beta-1i); AIC, The Akaike information criterion value; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3Frequencies of vitiligo phenotypes in cases.
Figure 4Distribution of TAP1 (D637G) and PSMB9 (R60H) genotypes among patients with different vitiligo phenotypes.
Genotype Distributions and Allelic Frequencies of the Examined TAP1/PSMB9 Genetic Loci for Active versus Stable Vitiligo Phenotypes
| Phenotype | Cases (%) | Alleles | Alleles | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DD | DG | GG | D | G | RR | RH | HH | R | H | ||
| Active | 104 (60.5) | 1 (0.96) | 66 (63.5) | 37 (35.6) | 68 (0.33) | 140 (0.67) | 18(17.3) | 66 (63.5) | 20 (19.2) | 102 (0.49) | 106 (0.51) |
| Stable | 68 (39.5) | 3 (4.41) | 20 (29.4) | 45 (66.2) | 26 (0.19) | 110 (0.81) | 10(14.7) | 48 (70.6) | 10 (14.7) | 68 (0.50) | 68 (0.50) |
| χ2= 19.7, | OR= 2.1, 95% CI (1.2–3.4), | Χ2= 0.969, | OR= 1.0, 95% CI (0.7–1.6), | ||||||||
Notes: Numbers of subjects, with percentages in parentheses. aTAP1 A/G (D637G) genotype differences between active and stable vitiligo cases; bP > 0.05, no significant difference; cP < 0.05 = a significant difference.
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Haplotype Association Analysis of the TAP1 rs1135216 D637G and PSMB9 rs17587 R60H SNPs (Adjusted by Age)
| D | R | 0.3601 | 1 (reference) | — | |
| G | R | 0.3143 | 0.01 (0.00–0.19) | ||
| G | H | 0.238 | 0.01 (0.00–0.13) | ||
| D | H | 0.0881 | 0.05 (0.00–1.33) | 0.078 | |
Notes: Bold numbers, statistically significant associations (P < 0.05).
In silico Functional Predictions of Non-Synonymous SNPs
| SNP ID | Allele Freq. | Biotype | Protein Position | cDNA Position | CDS Position | Codon | SIFT (Score) | PolyPhen2 (Score) | Mutation-Taster | FATHMM | Mutation | LoFtool |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs1135216 | A/G (0.19) | Protein-coding | D637G | 1978 | 1910 | GAC/GGC | 1.0 (tolerant) | 0 (benign) | 1.36e-36 | −2.37 (damage) | 1.275 | 0.0865 |
| rs17587 | G/A | Protein-coding | R60H | 217 | 179 | CGC/ CAC | 0.2 (tolerant) | 0.003 | 0.999 (polymorphism) | 2.11 | 1.05 | 0.2244 |
Abbreviations: CDS, coding sequence; FATHMM, functional analysis through hidden Markov models; LoFTool, loss-of-function tool (); SIFT, sorting intolerant from tolerant; PolyPhen-2, polymorphism phenotyping-2.
Figure 5Gene-network interactions contained the TAP1 and PSMB9 genes examined in this study (right side) created with STRING (), in which there are strong interactions between the TAP1/TAP2 genes and PSMB9 gene. On the Left side: More extended genes contained PSMB and PSMA gene families are shown. The TAP1 gene co-occurred the PSMB10 gene, while the PSMB9 gene considerably interacted and co-expressed with neighboring PSMB and PSMA gene families. Each node represents all the proteins produced by a single, protein-coding gene locus. Colored nodes describe proteins and the first shell of interactors. Edges represent protein–protein associations that are meant to be specific and meaningful, ie, proteins jointly contribute to a shared function; this does not necessarily mean they are physically binding each other.