4.8 Article

A joint view on genetic variants for adiposity differentiates subtypes with distinct metabolic implications

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04124-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [01ER1206, 01ER1507]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01DK075787, R01DK107786, R01DK110113, U01HG007417]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A_169929]
  4. SystemsX.ch [51RTP0_151019]
  5. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  6. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [U01HG007417] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK075787, R01DK107786, R01DK110113] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The problem of the genetics of related phenotypes is often addressed by analyzing adjusted-model traits, but such traits warrant cautious interpretation. Here, we adopt a joint view of adiposity traits in similar to 322,154 subjects (GIANT consortium). We classify 159 signals associated with body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), or WHR adjusted for BMI (WHRadjBMI) at P < 5 x 10(-8), into four classes based on the direction of their effects on BMI and WHR. Our classes help differentiate adiposity genetics with respect to anthropometry, fat depots, and metabolic health. Class-specific Mendelian randomization reveals that variants associated with both WHR-decrease and BMI increase are linked to metabolically rather favorable adiposity through beneficial hip fat. Class-specific enrichment analyses implicate digestive systems as a pathway in adiposity genetics. Our results demonstrate that WHRadjBMI variants capture relevant effects of unexpected fat distribution given the BMI and that a joint view of the genetics underlying related phenotypes can inform on important biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available