CREBRF missense variant rs373863828 has both direct and indirect effects on type 2 diabetes and fasting glucose in Polynesians living in Samoa and Aotearoa New Zealand

Participants and Phenotypes

For this study, we worked with three samples of Samoan participants from Samoa and American Samoa [2, 15–20] from a 1990–95 longitudinal study of cardiometabolic disease, a 2002–03 family-based cross-sectional study of adiposity-related trait genetics, and a 2010 population-based study of cardiometabolic disease genetics; and a sample of participants of Māori and Pacific (Polynesian) ancestry from the Genetics of Gout, Diabetes and Kidney Disease in Aotearoa New Zealand study [3].

Adult participants in the longitudinal 1990–95 study were recruited from Samoa and American Samoa. They reported Samoan ancestry and no previous diagnosis of diabetes, heart disease, or hypertension at baseline [18–20]. Whole blood was collected after an overnight fast for the fasting glucose measurement. Fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl at baseline was used to define type 2 diabetes [2, 18]. The final sample was comprised of 1,013 individuals with full phenotypic and genotypic data (Table 1a).

Participants of the cross-sectional 2002–03 family study reported Samoan ancestry and were recruited from Samoa and American Samoa as members of families of probands selected from the longitudinal 1990–1995 study [2, 16, 17]. Whole blood was collected after a 10 hour fast for the fasting glucose measurement. Fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl and/or a previous diabetes diagnosis was used to define type 2 diabetes [2, 16]. The final sample was comprised of 1,083 adults with full phenotypic and genotypic data (Table 1b).

Participants in the 2010 Samoan sample were drawn from a cross-sectional population-based study of adults of reported Samoan ancestry recruited in Samoa. Details of the sample population and recruitment have been described elsewhere [2, 15]. In brief, whole blood samples were collected following a 10 hour fast for the fasting glucose measurement. Type 2 diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl and/or currently taking medication to treat diabetes [2]. The final sample was comprised of 2,861 participants with full phenotypic and genotypic data (Table 1c).

The sample from Aotearoa New Zealand (n=2,124) was recruited from 2006–2017 [21]. Type 2 diabetes was ascertained by physician-diagnosis and/or participant reports and/or use of glucose lowering therapy [3]. Ancestry of participants was based on both self-reported NZ Māori and/or Pacific ancestries of their grandparents and clustering of genome-wide principal components resulting in 2,124 adults of Polynesian ancestry. Fasting glucose was not measured in this study (Table 1d).

In all studies, height and weight were measured in duplicate and were used to calculate BMI. Compared to people of European ancestries, people of Polynesian ancestries have a greater ratio of lean mass to fat mass at higher BMIs [22, 23]. Therefore, when classifying participants into those with and without obesity, we used a threshold of BMI > 32 kg/m², which is more appropriate in this population than the standard WHO cutoff of ≥ 30 kg/m² [22].

Details of the DNA extraction and genotyping for the Samoan, American Samoan and Aotearoa New Zealand samples have been described elsewhere [2, 3]. Subject relatedness in the 2010 sample was measured using an empirical kinship matrix calculated with OpenMendel using genome-wide genotype data [2, 24, 25]. In the 2002–03 sample, expected kinship was derived from familial pedigrees with OpenMendel [24]. Neither genome-wide genotype data nor pedigree information was available for participants in the 1990–95 sample, so subjects were treated as unrelated in statistical models. In the Aotearoa New Zealand sample, a kinship coefficient matrix was calculated from 40,156 independent autosomal markers using PLINK v1.9 [26].

All participants in these studies gave written informed consent. The research in Samoa and American Samoa was reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI; Brown University; University of Cincinnati; and University of Pittsburgh. Research in Samoa was also reviewed and approved by the Health Research Committee of the Samoan Ministry of Health. Research in American Samoa was additionally reviewed and approved by the American Samoa Department of Health institutional review board. Ethical approval for the Aotearoa New Zealand study was given by the NZ Multi-Region Ethics Committee (MEC/05/10/130; MEC/10/09/092; MEC/11/04/036) and the Northern Y Region Health Research Ethics Committee (NPHCT study; NTY07/07/074).

Statistical Analysis

We explored the impact of BMI and rs373863828 on type 2 diabetes and fasting glucose in three ways: (1) regression analysis to assess the effect of rs373863828 and natural log transformed BMI (lnBMI) on type 2 diabetes and natural log transformed fasting glucose (lnFG) in the two obesity-stratified groups; (2) regression analysis to assess the effect of lnBMI on type 2 diabetes and lnFG within each of the three rs373863828 genotype groups; and (3) path analysis to model the effects of lnBMI and rs373863828 on type 2 diabetes and lnFG.

Except where noted, all statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 3.6.0), and a significance threshold of α < 0.05 was used for all tests [27]. Age and age² were scaled and centered (cAge and cAge²), to separate the effects of the sex × age and sex × age² interactions from the main effects. The rs373863828 genotype was coded as an additive genetic effect so that it represents the number of copies of the minor allele, A. Participants who reported a diabetes diagnosis—and thus were potentially being treated for the disease—were excluded from fasting glucose analyses (Table 1). We did not exclude individuals with fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL from the fasting glucose analysis if they did not report a diagnosis because they were presumed to not be part of any intervention affecting their fasting glucose levels.

Each regression model described below was fit using logistic mixed models for type 2 diabetes status and linear mixed models for fasting glucose (Table S1). We adjusted for kinship as a random effect using the lme4qtl package [28].

Unless otherwise noted, we performed each analysis in each of the three Samoan/American Samoan samples and the Aotearoa New Zealand sample and then meta-analyzed the results together. In the regression analyses, the samples were meta-analyzed using standard error–weights based on the effect sizes and heterogeneity was tested in METAL [29]. In the path analyses, we pooled the raw data across the samples.

All regression models below were adjusted for the following fixed-effect covariates: cAge, cAge², sex, sex × cAge, sex × cAge². The analyses in the 2002–03 and 1990–95 Samoan/American Samoan sample sets were also adjusted for polity (Samoa or American Samoa) to account for different economic and cultural contexts. For each regression model, we compared the effect sizes and the overlap of confidence intervals, a conservative measure of heterogeneity, to assess the whether the effects were different per stratification [30].

Association of lnBMI and rs373863828 with type 2 diabetes and lnFG stratified by obesity

We stratified the samples by the Polynesian obesity cutoff (32 kg/m²). We examined if the effects of lnBMI and rs373863828 on type 2 diabetes differed for individuals with and without obesity by regressing type 2 diabetes on lnBMI and rs373863828 in the obesity-stratified groups. We also examined whether the effects of lnBMI and rs373863828 on fasting glucose differed by regressing lnFG on lnBMI and rs373863828 in the obesity-stratified groups.

Association of lnBMI with type 2 diabetes and lnFG stratified by rs373863828 genotype

We stratified the samples by rs373863828 genotype (GG, GA, and AA). We examined if the effect of lnBMI on type 2 diabetes differed depending on genotype group by regressing type 2 diabetes on lnBMI in each of the groups. We also examined whether the effect of lnBMI on lnFG differed by regressing lnFG on BMI in each of the genotype groups.

Modeling the effects of lnBMI and rs373863828 on type 2 diabetes and lnFG with path analysis

The relationships among sex, age, rs373863828, lnBMI, and type 2 diabetes were modeled with path analysis using the lavaan package in R [31]. Interaction terms were not included in the path model, and therefore variables were not centered. In the path analysis model, we regressed lnBMI on sex, age, and rs373863828, and type 2 diabetes on lnBMI, sex, age, and rs373863828. The indirect effect of rs373863828 on type 2 diabetes as mediated by lnBMI was calculated by multiplying the path coefficient of the direct effect of rs373863828 on lnBMI by the path coefficient of the direct effect of lnBMI on type 2 diabetes. Fasting glucose was modeled using path analysis by substituting lnFG for type 2 diabetes in the above model. Relatedness was not accounted for in these models because the methods for accounting for relatedness do not exist, and this may increase type I error.

In path analysis, the absolute value of an effect size of around 0.1 is commonly considered to be small, around 0.3 is medium, and 0.5 is large [32]. The direct paths of sex to type 2 diabetes and sex to lnFG had effect sizes less than 0.1 and were not part of the direct or indirect path of rs373863828 on type 2 diabetes/lnFG so they were trimmed from the models. For both type 2 diabetes and lnFG, two models were examined: with and without a dummy variable for study (2010 Samoa, 2002–2003 Samoa, 2002–2003 American Samoa, 1990–95 Samoa, 1990–95 American Samoa or 2006–2013 Aotearoa New Zealand) to assess for study sample differences.

Association of lnBMI and rs373863828 with type 2 diabetes and lnFG stratified by obesity

In the regression of type 2 diabetes on lnBMI and rs373863828, higher lnBMI was associated with higher type 2 diabetes odds in participants without and with obesity (OR = 6.27, p = 0.003; and OR = 4.41, p = 3.68 × 10⁻⁶, respectively). lnBMI was also associated with lnFG in participants without and with obesity (β = 0.191 (1.21 mg/dL higher fasting glucose with each higher unit of lnBMI), p = 4.11 × 10⁻⁶ and β = 0.093 (1.10 mg/dL higher fasting glucose), p = 0.036, respectively) (Figures 1 and S1 and Table 2). There was evidence of heterogeneity (p < 0.01) between studies in the subset with obesity in the type 2 diabetes analysis (p = 0.082) and the subset without obesity in the lnFG analysis (p = 0.063) (Figure S1 and Table S2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Comparison of the odds ratios and effect sizes in the obesity and genotype-stratified groups.

From the meta-analysis, (a) a comparison of the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals in the obesity and genotype-stratified models with type 2 diabetes as the independent variable and (b) a comparison of the effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals in the obesity and genotype-stratified models with lnFG as the independent variable.

On the other hand, rs373863828 was associated with lower type 2 diabetes odds in participants, both without and with obesity (OR = 0.58, p = 9.70 × 10⁻⁶; and OR = 0.73, p = 2.82 × 10⁻⁵, respectively). rs373863828 was also associated with lower lnFG in participants both without and with obesity (β = −0.030 (−0.97 mg/dL fasting glucose with each copy of the missense allele), p = 8.17 × 10⁻⁵ and β = −0.033 (−0.97 mg/dL fasting glucose), p = 1.22 × 10⁻⁴, respectively) (Figure 1 and S1 and Table 2).

Association of lnBMI with type 2 diabetes and lnFG stratified by rs373863828 genotype

In the regression of type 2 diabetes on lnBMI in the genotype-stratified groups, higher lnBMI was associated with higher type 2 diabetes odds in both the GG and GA groups (OR = 6.37, p = 1.88 × 10⁻¹⁵; and OR = 7.05, p = 2.46 × 10⁻⁵, respectively). lnBMI was not significantly associated with type 2 diabetes in the AA group (OR = 1.774, p = 0.619) (Table 2). However, the analysis of the AA group only included participants from the 2010 Samoan sample (type 2 diabetes cases = 22) because the regression models did not converge with the low numbers of type 2 diabetes cases in the AA group in the 1990–95 and 2002–03 Samoan samples (n = 2 and n = 6, respectively) and in the Aotearoa New Zealand sample (n = 16) (Figure 1 and Table S3). According to a post-hoc power calculation, we had 70.5% power to detect an odds ratio of 1.774 in our AA sample with α = 0.05.

In the meta-analysis of lnBMI on lnFG in the genotype-stratified groups, higher lnBMI was associated with higher lnFG in all genotype groups (GG: β = 0.245 (1.28 mg/dL higher fasting glucose with each unit of lnBMI), p = 3.12 × 10⁻²⁰; GA: β = 0.214 (1.24 mg/dL higher fasting glucose), p = 1.89 × 10⁻¹⁰; and AA: β = 0.161 (1.17 mg/dL higher fasting glucose), p = 0.001) (Figure 1 and Table S3). In the lnFG analyses, there was evidence of heterogeneity between studies in the GG group (p = 0.079) (Figure S2).

Path analysis models

The type 2 diabetes path analysis model included five nodes: lnBMI, sex, rs373863828 genotype (subscript Gt in the following path coefficients), age, and type 2 diabetes (subscript T2D). The path pooled analyses were modeled with and without additional nodes to account for study sample (Figure S2). These models were similar so the simpler models are presented below. In the path pooled analysis displayed in Figure 2a, rs373863828 had a small direct effect on lnBMI (P_lnBMI,Gt = 0.10, p < 0.001). rs373863828 and lnBMI had small direct effects on type 2 diabetes (P_T2D,Gt = −0.09, p < 0.001; and P_T2D,lnBMI = 0.13, p < 0.001, respectively). rs373863828 also had a small indirect effect on type 2 diabetes as mediated by lnBMI (P_lnBMI,Gt × P_T2D,lnBMI = 0.01). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.011 (90% CI 0.000–0.035) indicating a good model fit [33].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Type 2 Diabetes and lnFG Path Analysis Models

In the pooled analysis, rs373863828 genotype (Gt) has both direct (blue) and indirect (red) effects on (a) type 2 diabetes (T2D) and (b) lnFG as mediated by lnBMI. All direct paths shown have p < 0.001.

The lnFG path analysis model included five nodes: lnBMI, sex, rs373863828, age, and lnFG. In the path pooled analysis (Figure 2b), rs373863828 had a small direct effect on lnBMI (P_lnBMI,Gt = 0.12, p < 0.001). rs373863828 had a small direct effect on lnFG (P_lnFG,lnBMI = 0.18, p < 0.001). rs373863828 also had a small indirect effect on lnFG that was mediated by lnBMI (P_lnBMI,Gt × P_lnFG,lnBMI = 0.02). RMSEA was 0.068 (90% CI 0.045–0.094) indicating that the path model was a mediocre fit [33].