Combining information from common type 2 diabetes risk polymorphisms improves disease prediction
2006

Improving Type 2 Diabetes Prediction with Genetic Information

Sample size: 4077 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Weedon Michael N, McCarthy Mark I, Hitman Graham, Walker Mark, Groves Christopher J, Zeggini Eleftheria, Rayner N. William, Shields Beverley, Owen Katharine R, Hattersley Andrew T, Frayling Timothy M

Primary Institution: Department of Diabetes Research and Vascular Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom

Hypothesis

Does combining information from multiple genetic variants improve the prediction of type 2 diabetes risk?

Conclusion

Combining information from several known common risk polymorphisms allows the identification of population subgroups with markedly differing risks of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those obtained using single polymorphisms.

Supporting Evidence

  • Each additional risk allele increased the odds of type 2 diabetes by 1.28 times.
  • Participants with all six risk alleles had an odds ratio of 5.71 compared to those with no risk alleles.
  • The study included a large sample size of 2,409 cases and 3,668 controls.

Takeaway

If you have certain genes, your chances of getting type 2 diabetes can be higher, especially if you have more of these genes. This study helps us understand who might be at risk.

Methodology

The study genotyped three common genetic variants in a large case-control study of individuals with and without type 2 diabetes.

Potential Biases

The study may not fully represent the general population due to the selection of cases and controls.

Limitations

The cases are enriched for patients with a family history of type 2 diabetes and a young age of diagnosis, which may overestimate the risk due to these variants.

Participant Demographics

Participants were white UK residents, including 2,409 cases of type 2 diabetes and 3,668 controls.

Statistical Information

P-Value

1.5 × 10−10

Confidence Interval

95% CI, 1.15 to 28.3

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pmed.0030374

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication