OBJECTIVE

Wolfram syndrome 1 (WFS1) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. In this study we aimed to refine this association and investigate the role of low-frequency WFS1 variants in type 2 diabetes risk.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

For fine-mapping, we sequenced WFS1 exons, splice junctions, and conserved noncoding sequences in samples from 24 type 2 diabetic case and 68 control subjects, selected tagging SNPs, and genotyped these in 959 U.K. type 2 diabetic case and 1,386 control subjects. The same genomic regions were sequenced in samples from 1,235 type 2 diabetic case and 1,668 control subjects to compare the frequency of rarer variants between case and control subjects.

RESULTS

Of 31 tagging SNPs, the strongest associated was the previously untested 3′ untranslated region rs1046320 (P = 0.008); odds ratio 0.84 and P = 6.59 × 10−7 on further replication in 3,753 case and 4,198 control subjects. High correlation between rs1046320 and the original strongest SNP (rs10010131) (r2 = 0.92) meant that we could not differentiate between their effects in our samples. There was no difference in the cumulative frequency of 82 rare (minor allele frequency [MAF] <0.01) nonsynonymous variants between type 2 diabetic case and control subjects (P = 0.79). Two intermediate frequency (MAF 0.01–0.05) nonsynonymous changes also showed no statistical association with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified six highly correlated SNPs that show strong and comparable associations with risk of type 2 diabetes, but further refinement of these associations will require large sample sizes (>100,000) or studies in ethnically diverse populations. Low frequency variants in WFS1 are unlikely to have a large impact on type 2 diabetes risk in white U.K. populations, highlighting the complexities of undertaking association studies with low-frequency variants identified by resequencing.

OBJECTIVE

WFS1 (Wolfram Syndrome 1) SNPs are associated with risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Here, we aimed to refine this association and investigate the role of low frequency WFS1 variants in T2D risk.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

For fine-mapping, we sequenced WFS1 exons, splice junctions and conserved non-coding sequences in 24 T2D cases and 68 controls, selected tagging SNPs, and genotyped these in 959 UK T2D cases and 1386 controls. The same genomic regions were sequenced in 1235 T2D cases and 1668 controls to compare the frequency of rarer variants between cases and controls.

RESULTS

Of 31 tagging SNPs, the strongest associated was the previously untested 3′ UTR rs1046320 (P=0.008); OR=0.84, P=6.59 × 10−7 on further replication in 3753 cases and 4198 controls. High correlation between rs1046320 and the original strongest SNP (rs10010131) (r2=0.92) meant that we could not differentiate between their effects in our samples. There was no difference in the cumulative frequency of 82 rare (MAF<0.01) non-synonymous variants between T2D cases and controls (P=0.79). Two intermediate frequency (MAF 0.01-0.05) non-synonymous changes also showed no statistical association with T2D.

CONCLUSION

We identified six highly correlated SNPs that show strong and comparable associations with risk of T2D association but further refinement of these associations will require large sample sizes (>100,000), or studies in ethnically diverse populations. Low frequency variants in WFS1 are unlikely to have a large impact on T2D risk in white UK populations, highlighting the complexities of undertaking association studies with low frequency variants identified by re-sequencing.

In 2007, an association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene region with body mass index (BMI) and risk of obesity was identified in multiple populations, making FTO the first locus unequivocally associated with adiposity. At the time, FTO was a gene of unknown function and it was not known whether these SNPs exerted their effect on adiposity by affecting FTO or neighboring genes. Therefore, this breakthrough association inspired a wealth of in silico, in vitro, and in vivo analyses in model organisms and humans to improve knowledge of FTO function. These studies suggested that FTO plays a role in controlling feeding behavior and energy expenditure. Here, we review the approaches taken that provide a blueprint for the study of other obesity-associated genes in the hope that this strategy will result in increased understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying body weight regulation.

OBJECTIVE— Loss of lipin 1 activity causes lipodystrophy and insulin resistance in the fld mouse, and LPIN1 expression and common genetic variation were recently suggested to influence adiposity and insulin sensitivity in humans. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive association study to clarify the influence of common LPIN1 variation on adiposity and insulin sensitivity in U.K. populations and to examine the role of LPIN1 mutations in insulin resistance syndromes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD— Twenty-two single nucleotide polymorphisms tagging common LPIN1 variation were genotyped in Medical Research Council (MRC) Ely (n = 1,709) and Hertfordshire (n = 2,901) population-based cohorts. LPIN1 exons, exon/intron boundaries, and 3′ untranslated region were sequenced in 158 patients with idiopathic severe insulin resistance (including 23 lipodystrophic patients) and 48 control subjects.

RESULTS— We found no association between LPIN1 single nucleotide polymorphisms and fasting insulin but report a nominal association between rs13412852 and BMI (P = 0.042) in a meta-analysis of 8,504 samples from in-house and publicly available studies. Three rare nonsynonymous variants (A353T, R552K, and G582R) were detected in severely insulin-resistant patients. However, these did not cosegregate with disease in affected families, and Lipin1 protein expression and phosphorylation in patients with variants were indistinguishable from those in control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS— Our data do not support a major effect of common LPIN1 variation on metabolic traits and suggest that mutations in LPIN1 are not a common cause of lipodystrophy in humans. The nominal associations with BMI and other metabolic traits in U.K. cohorts require replication in larger cohorts.

OBJECTIVE:

Loss of Lpin1 activity causes lipodystrophy and insulin resistance in the fld mouse, and LPIN1 expression and common genetic variation were recently suggested to influence adiposity and insulin sensitivity in humans. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive association study to clarify the influence of LPIN1 common variation on adiposity and insulin sensitivity in UK populations, and to examine the role of LPIN1 mutations in insulin resistance syndromes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD:

Twenty-two SNPs tagging LPIN1 common variation were genotyped in MRC Ely (N = 1709) and Hertfordshire (N = 2901) population-based cohorts. LPIN1 exons, exon/intron boundaries and 3′UTR were sequenced in 158 patients with idiopathic severe insulin resistance (including 23 lipodystrophic patients), and 48 controls.

RESULTS:

We found no association between LPIN1 SNPs and fasting insulin, but report a nominal association between rs13412852 and BMI (P = 0.042) in a meta-analysis of 8504 samples from in-house and publicly available studies. Three rare nonsynonymous variants (A353T, R552K and G582R) were detected in severely insulin resistant patients. However, these did not co-segregate with disease in affected families and Lipin1 protein expression and phosphorylation in patients with variants was indistinguishable from controls.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our data do not support a major effect of LPIN1 common variation on metabolic traits and suggest that mutations in LPIN1 are not a common cause of lipodystrophy in humans. The nominal associations with BMI and other metabolic traits in UK cohorts require replication in larger cohorts.

We studied genes involved in pancreatic β cell function and survival, identifying associations between SNPs in WFS1 and diabetes risk in UK populations that we replicated in an Ashkenazi population and in additional UK studies. In a pooled analysis comprising 9,533 cases and 11,389 controls, SNPs in WFS1 were strongly associated with diabetes risk. Rare mutations in WFS1 cause Wolfram syndrome; using a gene-centric approach, we show that variation in WFS1 also predisposes to common type 2 diabetes.