4.7 Article

Genetic Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes: A Trans-Regulatory Genetic Architecture?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 466-477

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.08.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK039311, DK80327, DK71349, U01 HL084715, P60 DK20595, U01 DK085501, U01 GM61393, R01 MH090937]
  2. VA merit grant
  3. Sturgis Foundation
  4. Research Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs
  5. National Center for Research Resources [1UL1RR029884]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, 68 loci have been associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or glucose homeostasis traits. We report here the results of experiments aimed at functionally characterizing the SNPs replicated for T2D and glucose traits. We sought to determine whether these loci were associated with transcript levels in adipose, muscle, liver, lymphocytes, and pancreatic beta-cells. We found an excess of trans, rather than cis, associations among these SNPs in comparison to what was expected in adipose and muscle. Among transcripts differentially expressed (FDR < 0.05) between muscle or adipose cells of insulin-sensitive individuals and those of insulin-resistant individuals (matched on BMI), trans-regulated transcripts, in contrast to the cis-regulated ones, were enriched. The paucity of cis associations with transcripts was confirmed in a study of liver transcriptome and was further supported by an analysis of the most detailed transcriptome map of pancreatic p-cells. Relative to location- and allele-frequency-matched random SNPs, both the 68 loci and top T2D-associated SNPs from two large-scale genome-wide studies were enriched for trans eQTLs in adipose and muscle but not in lymphocytes. Our study suggests that T2D SNPs have broad-reaching and tissue-specific effects that often extend beyond local transcripts and raises the question of whether patterns of cis or trans transcript regulation are a key feature of the architecture of complex traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据