4.7 Article

Large Copy-Number Variations Are Enriched in Cases With Moderate to Extreme Obesity

期刊

DIABETES
卷 59, 期 10, 页码 2690-2694

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db10-0192

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01DK44073, R01DK56210, R01DK076023]
  2. American Heart Association [0630188N]
  3. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-Obesity is an increasingly common disorder that predisposes to several medical conditions, including type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether large and rare copy-number variations (CNVs) differentiate moderate to extreme obesity from never-overweight control subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays, we performed a genome-wide CNV survey on 430 obese case subjects (BMI >35 kg/m(2)) and 379 never-overweight control subjects (BMI <25 kg/m(2)). All subjects were of European ancestry and were genotyped on the Illumina HumartHap550 arrays with similar to 550,000 SNP markers. The CNV calls were generated by PennCNV software. RESULTS-CNVs >1 Mb were found to be overrepresented in case versus control subjects (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5 [95% CI 0.5-5]), and CNVs >2 Mb were present in 1.3% of the case subjects but were absent in control subjects (OR = infinity [95% CI 1.2-infinity]). When focusing on rare deletions that disrupt genes, even more pronounced effect sizes are observed (OR = 2.7 [95% CI 0.5-27.1] for CNVs >1 Mb). Interestingly, obese case subjects who carry these large CNVs have moderately high BMI and do not appear to be extreme cases. Several CNVs disrupt known candidate genes for obesity, such as a 3.3-Mb deletion disrupting NAP1L5 and a 2.1-Mb deletion disrupting UCP1 and IL15. CONCLUSIONS-Our results suggest that large CNVs, especially rare deletions, confer risk of obesity in patients with moderate obesity and that genes impacted by large CNVs represent intriguing candidates for obesity that warrant further study. Diabetes 59:2690-2694, 2010

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