Genome-Wide Association Study of Estradiol Levels, and the Causal Effect of Estradiol on Bone Mineral Density

Daniel Schmitz, Weronica E. Ek, Elin Berggren, Julia Höglund, Torgny Karlsson, Åsa Johansson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259826

Abstract

Context Estradiol is the primary female sex hormone and plays an important role for skeletal health in both sexes. Several enzymes are involved in estradiol metabolism but few genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been performed to characterize the genetic contribution to variation in estrogen levels.

Objective Identify genetic loci affecting estradiol levels and estimate causal effect of estradiol on bone mineral density (BMD).

Design We performed GWAS for estradiol in males (N = 147,690) and females (N = 163,985) from UK Biobank (UKB). Estradiol was analyzed as a binary phenotype; above/below detection limit (175 pmol/L). We further estimated the causal effect of estradiol on BMD using Mendelian randomization.

Results We identified 14 independent loci associated (P<5×10−8) with estradiol levels in males, of which one (CYP3A7) was genome-wide and seven nominally (P<0.05) significant in females. In addition, one female specific locus was identified. Most loci contain functionally relevant genes that have not been discussed in relation to estradiol levels in previous GWAS. For example, SRD5A2, which encodes a steroid 5-alpha reductase that is involved in processing androgens, and UGT3A1 and UGT2B7 which encode enzymes likely to be involved in estradiol elimination. The allele that tags the O blood group, at the ABO locus, was associated with higher estradiol levels. We identified a causal effect of high estradiol levels on increased BMD in both males (P=1.58×10−11) and females (P=7.48×10−6).

Conclusion Our findings further support the importance of the body’s own estrogen to maintain skeletal health in males and in females.

Introduction

Estrogen, the primary female sex hormone, is responsible for the development of the female reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. Estrogen acts primarily as a growth hormone for the reproductive organs and regulates the menstrual cycle in women1. Additionally, it plays a critical role in male sexual function2. There are three major forms of estrogen: estrone, estradiol and estriol. Estradiol is the major and most potent form3. In females, high estrogen levels have been associated with deep vein thrombosis4 and increased risk for certain cancers, including breast cancer5 in women. In males, higher levels have been suggested to be associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D)6. Estrogen is also an important regulator of bone metabolism in both females and males7. When estrogen levels drop during menopause, the cells that synthesize bone (osteoblasts) are unable to effectively produce bone mass8. The loss of ovarian estrogens after menopause has been associated with reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and higher risk of osteoporosis9,10.

Previously published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for estrogen have been performed in cohorts of up to 11,000 individuals, mostly of European descent, both male and female and stratified by sex11–15. In addition, a GWAS was recently performed for sex hormone levels in UK biobank (UKB), a study which mainly focused on testosterone16. They identified strong sex-specific genetic effects on serum testosterone levels, but did not consider the results from estradiol in women, due to the strong link between estradiol levels and menopausal status/age of menopause. Previous studies have also addressed the causal effect of estradiol and testosterone levels in relation to disease risk using Mendelian randomization (MR)15–17. MR uses genetic data to evaluate a potential causal relationship between an exposure, for example hormones, and disease risk. The underlying assumption in MR is that if a hormone is involved in a disease process, then the genetic factors influencing the levels of the hormone should only affect disease risk through their effects on hormone levels, and not through any alternative pathways. MR is conceptually similar to randomized controlled trials because genotypes are assigned randomly already at conception. MR can therefore be used to overcome some of the limitations of observational studies, such as bias due to unmeasured or unknown confounding. Likewise, reverse causation is also avoided due to genotypes being assigned before the disease manifests. For testosterone, many independent genetic variants were identified and included in the previous MR. They concluded that testosterone increases the risk for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and type 2 diabetes in women but decreases the risk for type 2 diabetes in men16. Even though the number of GWAS significant findings for estradiol has been quite limited in previous studies11–15, those variants have been used in MR studies to address the causal effect of estradiol on disease risk. Two recent MR studies, using five and two SNPs respectively, identified a beneficial effect of estradiol on bone mineral density (BMD) in males15,17, but no study has yet been performed in females.

By using the largest cohort with estradiol levels measured; almost half a million participants, we have been able to further highlight novel genes, important for regulating estradiol levels. Most assays for measuring estradiol levels are not very sensitive, and the methods used in UKB had a detection limit of 175 pmol/L. Normal ranges of serum estradiol levels are 36.7-183.6 pmol/L in men, 73.4 – 2753.5 pmol/L in premenopausal women and 0 – 73.4 pmol/L in postmenopausal women18. This results in a large fraction of the samples, especially men and postmenopausal women, having levels below detection limit. Similar to a previous GWAS for estradiol16, we have therefore analyzed estradiol as a binary phenotype (above or below detection limit), instead of removing all individuals below detection limit. We have stratified the cohort by sex and menopausal status, to enable comparing genetic effects across strata. Thanks to the larger sample size in UKB compared to previous studies, we were able to identify enough genetic variants associated with estradiol levels to permit causal effect estimation of estradiol on bone mineral density, through MR analysis, also in females.

Material and Methods

Sample

UKB is a cross sectional cohort of about 500,000 participants, born between 1939 and 1970, that were recruited 2006—2010. Detailed information was collected on lifestyle and anthropometric traits, and on female specific factors, that are likely to effect hormone levels, including use of birth control pills, hormone replacement treatments, pregnancies and menopause. Participants also provided blood samples that were used to genotype approximately 800,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome and to measure levels of estradiol. The application to use data from UKB has been approved (under project number 41143). UKB has an ethics permit from the National Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 11 / NW / 0382). Phenotype data for this project was extracted from the UKB database April 2019. All analyses performed in this study are based on the samples and information collected at the participants initial visit to the assessment center. Ethical approval for the analyses performed in this study has also been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr: 2020-04415)

Genotype data

A total of 438,417 participants had been genotyped using the UKB Axiom array, and another 49,994 participants had been genotyped using the similar (95% common marker content) UK BiLEVE array. SNPs had been imputed using UK10K and 1000 genomes phase 3, as reference panels19,20. For this project we used imputed data from the third release which contained a total of 93,093,070 SNPs. We only analyzed SNPs with minor allele frequency (MAF) > 0.01, and removed SNPs deviating from Hardy-Weinberg (P-value < 1×10−20) and markers with more than 5% missing genotype data, and with imputation quality < 0.3. After quality control (QC), a total of 7,651,231 autosomal SNPs, and 220,486 SNPs on the X-chromosome remained. We included Caucasian participants clustering with regards to their genetic principal components. We also excluded first- and second-degree relatives (genetic relationship > 0.044), using kinship data. Samples with sex discordance, high heterozygosity/missingness, and with more than 5% missing genotypes were also excluded. After QC and exclusion, 361,975 unrelated Caucasian participants remained (167,168 males and 194,807 females).

Estradiol measurements

Estradiol had been measured by two step competitive analysis on a Beckman Coulter Unicel Dxl 800. We only included measurements from the blood samples that were collected during the participants initial visit to the assessment center. Among all participants, only 76,668 had estradiol measurements above detection limit (175 pmol/L). As the majority of the participants had measurements below detection limit, estradiol levels were analyzed as a binary phenotype (above/below detection limit).

GWAS and sensitivity analyses

GWAS was performed in males and females separately, using logistic regression with an additive genetic model implemented in PLINK version 2. The following covariates were included in both male and female analyses: age, body mass index (BMI), the first ten genetic principal components (to adjust for population structures and ethnic origins), and a binary indicator variable for UKB Axiom versus UK BiLEVE genotyping array, to adjust for any array differences. For females, hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) (current, ever or never), oral contraceptive use (current, ever or never), number of live births, menopausal status and whether they have undergone hysterectomy, were also included. Women who were unsure about menopausal status were excluded. For this study, we applied a P-value threshold of 5×10−8, which is commonly used in GWAS when using a MAF cutoff of 1%21, and corresponds to a correction of 1 million independent tests (SNPs). Manhattan plots were generated using the R package hudson. We applied the clump-function in PLINK 1.90 to define start and end positions for each locus with the main parameters that determines the clumping being set to: R2=0.1, p1=5×10−8 and p2=1×10−4. We subsequently performed conditional analyses for each locus, conditioning on the SNP with the lowest P-value from each locus. If there was any significant conditional SNP, this was repeated by also conditioning on the conditional SNP from the previous analyses, until no additional significant associations remained.

Several sensitivity analyses were performed for the GWAS. First, we stratified females into being pre- and postmenopausal. Secondly, we excluded all participants with a cancer diagnosis prior to assessment (when blood samples were taken). Finally, we also analyzed males and females with testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels included as covariates, in addition to the other covariates and with age at menopause as a covariate in the female postmenopausal stratum.

Annotation of GWAS lead SNPs

To identify likely target genes for the associated variants, we first identified genes containing the lead SNPs, or the closest gene(s) for each individual lead SNP. We also used HaploReg v4.122 to identify potential functional effects by the individual lead SNP, or any variant in linkage disequilibrium (LD, R2>0.8) with the lead SNP. We then checked for overlap between the lead SNPs and expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) using data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project23. We considered our lead SNP to overlap with an eQTL if our lead SNP was in LD (R2>0.8) with a lead SNP for an eQTL. To identify overlap with other phenotypes from previously published GWAS we downloaded summary statistics from the GWAS catalog (Version downloaded: 1.0.3, date: 2020-11-13). We defined signals to be overlapping if a lead SNP from a previous GWAS was in LD (R2>0.8) with any of our lead SNPs.

Mendelian Randomization

Firstly, we undertook a one-sample MR approach to investigate the causal effect of estradiol on BMD in UKB, in males and females separately. BMD was measured as heel BMD, based on an ultrasound measurement of the calcaneus (heel bone), using the Sahara Clinical Bone Sonometer. We used T-score, automated (data-field 78 in UKB). The T-score is the number of standard deviations a person’s BMD differs from the mean BMD of their respective sex. The main MR analyses were performed with the R package gsmr (version 1.0.8)24. The GSMR approach allows both for heteroskedastic and correlated data via the variance-covariance matrix, and identifies and removes pleiotropic outliers prior to causal effect estimation. The default LD threshold was used (R2=0.05) and the significance threshold for an SNP being identified as an outlier, and therefore not belonging to the set of valid instruments, was set to the default value of a=0.01. GSMR assumes a fixed effects model with the test statistic following a χ2 distribution with 1 degree of freedom. We further performed sensitivity analyses, applying inverse variance weighted, weighted median, and the MR-Egger method, using the “MendelianRandomization” tool implemented in R. The MR-Egger intercept test was used to assess the possible presence of directional pleiotropy in the set of genetic instruments, where a deviation from zero intercept indicates pleiotropy25. Both the inverse variance weighted and the MR-Egger methods assume a random effects model, with underdispersion not being allowed. The standard error of the estimate for the weighted median method is estimated using bootstrapping. If heterogeneity is present in the data, these methods would tend to show higher p-values as compared GSMR, as GSMR is expected to remove outliers. Secondly, the MR results were further replicated by two-sample MR, using the GWAS summary statistics for BMD from the GEFOS study26. This was done in order to avoid any weak-instrument bias towards the confounded association, potentially present in one-sample MR analyses. We used GWAS summary statistics for lumbar spine BMD (LSBMD) from the 2012 data release on www.gefos.org (downloaded: 2020-11-13), which was the only dataset with summary statistics for males and females separately that did not include samples from UKB. The two sets (for males and females) of genetic variants that had been selected in UKB were tested independently using GEFOS BMD summary statistics for males and females respectively. The overlap, with regards to SNPs, was not perfect between UKB and GEFOS. We therefore revised the set of SNPs for the MR in GEFOS slightly. For each of our GWAS locus, we selected the most significant SNP in LD with our lead SNP (R2 > 0.3) for which summary statistics were also available in the GEFOS data as a proxy. However, to avoid too weak instruments in the MR, only proxies that were associated with estradiol levels (P< 0.0001) were included in the MR. Finally, we note that any winner’s-curse bias in our effect estimates of the genetic variants associated with estradiol levels, should, on average, drive the estimates of the causal effect of estrogen on BMD towards the null.

Results

A total of 147,690 male participants had passed our genotype and estradiol QC (Figure 1, Table 1). Of these, 134,323 had estradiol levels below detection limit (175 pmol/L), while 13,367 individuals had measured estradiol levels above, or equal to 175 pmol/L (Table 1). The number of females (N = 163,985) was slightly higher compared to males, with 37,461 having estradiol levels above detection limit, and 126,524 below. Dramatically smaller fractions of males (9.1%) and postmenopausal women (7.9%) had detectable estrogen levels (Table 1), in comparison to the fraction of premenopausal women (71.9%) with detectable estrogen levels. Number of live births, age, and BMI were significantly lower among women with detectable estradiol in both post and premenopausal strata (P<0.05).

View this table:
Table 1. Baseline characteristics in the UKB participants included in our GWAS
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flowchart of UK Biobank participants included in the four GWAS. QC = quality control, DT = detection limit (for estradiol measurement).

GWAS results

We identified 15 loci, on 14 different chromosomes, to be significantly associated (P<5×10−8) with estradiol in males or females (Figure 2,Table 2). Of these, 13 were genome-wide significant only in males, one only in females (MCM8) and one in both males and females (CYP3A7). On chromosome 2, and 15, one conditional SNP was identified per locus, located in the vicinity to the primary lead SNPs (Table 2). Among the lead SNPs identified in males, some were located in or close to genes with a well-known role in estradiol metabolism. Among the most significant loci, we found FAM9A and CYP19A1, which have previously been identified in GWAS for estradiol in males12,15. One lead SNP, rs45446698, was genome-wide significant in both males and females, mapped to CYP3A7. It is also the most significant eQTL for CYP3A7 in adrenal gland in GTEx (P=1.2×10−12), suggesting that the effect is mediated by the expression level of CYP3A7. The minor (G) allele increases the level of CYP3A7 expression, but decreases the estradiol levels. There was also one lead SNP in SHBG, which codes for SHBG that had been linked to measurements of several other sex hormones16. Another lead SNP was located on the X chromosome, within the AR gene that encodes an androgen receptor. We also found a very strong association on chromosome 2, that overlaps with SRD5A2, which codes for 3-oxo-5-alpha-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2, known to catalyze the conversion of testosterone into androgen or dihydrotestosterone27. Our most significant SNP is in LD (R2=0.75) with rs9282858, which is a missense variant that is predicted to be deleterious (SIFT=0.03). Here, the minor allele was associated with higher estradiol levels (Table 2). At the same locus on chromosome two, there was also one strong conditional signal, further upstream of the primary signal, closer to MEMO1.

View this table:
Table 2. Results of the GWAS including conditional SNPs
Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Hudson plot for the estradiol GWAS in males (upper) and females (lower). The red horizontal line indicated the genome-wide significance threshold (5×10−8).

There was also an association to rs657152 in ABO, and SNP that is in LD (R2=0.98) with rs8176719, which tags the O blood group28. The A allele of rs657152 (Table 2) tags the non-O blood groups and we found rs657152-A to be associated with lower levels of estradiol, indicating that individuals with a non-O blood group have lower levels of estradiol compared to individuals with the O blood group. Two associations on chromosome 4 and 5 respectively, mapped to UGT2B7 (rs7662029) and UGT3A1 (rs1073548). UGT3A1 and UGT2B7 are glucuronosyltransferases, which are enzymes that catalyze the glucosidation of lipophilic chemicals, facilitating their elimination29. Another lead SNP mapped to SULT2A1, which encodes a sulfotransferase which is believed to be important for sex-steroid biosynthesis by sulfating hydroxylated steroid hormones and bile acids30. Another lead SNP on chromosome 14 is a missense variant in FKBP4, which encodes the protein FKBP52 that has been suggested to be involved in the formation of steroid hormone nuclear receptors that regulate hormone levels31.

The remaining lead SNPs from the GWAS in males were mapped to loci with less clear links to estradiol metabolism. These include one lead SNP (and one conditional SNP) in a locus with a cluster of genes, including IGHV3-7 and IGHV6-1, that encodes parts of immunoglobulin heavy chains that participates in the antigen recognition. Another lead SNP is located in RBBP8 which encodes Retinoblastoma-binding protein 8 (RBBP8, CtIP), an endonuclease involved in the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks through homologous recombination as well as regulation of G2/M cell-cycle checkpoints as part of the BRCA1-RBBP8 complex32. Variation in RBBP8 genotype and regulation has been reported in multiple types of cancer33,34. A third SNP was a missense variant in LINC01324, a lncRNA which has been established as a predictor for melanoma progression35.

The lead SNP that was only significant in females (rs16991615, Table 2), is a missense variant located in MCM8. MCM8 codes for a DNA helicase, which is involved in the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks and recombination36. Even though very few genome-wide significant SNPs were identified in women, eight out of 14 of the loci that were genome-wide significant in males, were at least nominally associated in females as well (P < 0.05), and with the same direction of effect (Figure 3). Especially the genes with functions related to hormone metabolism; UGT2B7, UGT3A1, CYP3A7, CYP19A1, SRD5A2, and SHBG replicated in females, but also IGHV3-7 and ABO.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

OR and 95% CIs for the lead SNPs in the male and female strata, as well as the two female subgroups: pre- and post-menopause. The lead SNP for each locus that reached genome-wide significance in males or females in the primary analyses are included. Non-overlapping confidence intervals typically indicate a significant difference in ORs well below p = 0.05.

Sensitivity analysis

Even though the primary aim of the sensitivity analyses was to further verify the associations from the primary GWAS, we did perform GWAS with the different sets of covariates/strata in the sensitivity analyses as well. However, no additional genome-wide significant locus was identified. The effects of the findings from the primary analyses changed somewhat. When stratifying females into pre- and post-menopause there was one locus, CYP3A7, with a significant difference in the OR between the two strata (Supplementary Table S137, Figure 3). For CYP3A7, the largest effect was seen in postmenopausal women OR = 0.703 (0.642 - 0.770), followed by males OR= 0.811 (0.758 - 0.868), and then premenopausal OR = 0.907 (0.837 - 0.984).

After removing all participants that had a prior cancer diagnosis at the time of assessment, there was no significant difference in OR compared to the primary GWAS, and all lead SNPs were still genome-wide significant, indicating that a prior cancer diagnosis did not influence our primary results (Supplementary Table S137). However, when adjusting the estradiol GWAS for testosterone and SHBG levels, the lead SNPs at SHBG and FKBP4 were no longer genome-wide significant in males, and the corresponding effects were significantly lower than the previous signals. Also, for UGT3A1 and AR, the P-values were below the threshold for genome-wide significance for estradiol when adjusting for testosterone and SHBG levels, but the ORs were not significantly different from the primary analyses. This indicates that the signals at SHBG and FKBP4 might have been completely driven by SHBG and testosterone levels, whereas the other loci are more likely to be estradiol specific loci. We observed the same effect for the female-specific locus MCM8. There was no significant difference in OR between the primary GWAS in postmenopausal women with and without adjustment for age at menopause, suggesting that the results in females are not strongly confounded by age at menopause as has been discussed previously16.

GWAS overlap with estradiol and related phenotypes

We did a systematic check for overlap with previous GWAS results that were available in the GWAS catalog (Supplementary Table S237). For lead SNPs at UGT3A1, LINC01324 and RBBP8, we found no overlap with previous GWAS signals. Several SNPs at the AR locus have previously been associated with male pattern baldness38, but none of those are in strong LD with our lead SNP (R2<0.3). The lead SNP at the other ten loci, all overlapped with at least one previous GWAS. There were several overlapping signals with phenotypes that are related to sex hormones. For example, the lead SNPs at SRD5A2 and FAM9A overlap with male pattern baldness, as well. The lead SNPs at CYP3A7 and SULT2A1 overlap with GWAS-hits for several sex hormones and other metabolites, UGT2B7 overlaps with serum and urinary metabolites, while SHBG overlaps with testosterone levels. Our lead SNPs in FAM9A, CYP19A1, and CYP3A7 all overlap with previous GWAS for BMD. Other loci overlap with GWAS for more distal traits. For example, the lead SNP in ABO overlaps with results from over 100 GWAS, with associations to metabolites, liver enzymes and proteins as well as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. The lead SNP at FKBP4 overlaps with waist to hip ratio and lung function. MCM8, the female specific locus, overlaps with traits related to age at menopause. This agrees partly with our sensitivity analyses where the OR decreased slightly from OR = 1.139 (1.087 – 1.193) in the primary GWAS to OR = 1.126 (1.035 – 1.225) when adjusted for age at menopause. Still the OR was significantly different from unity in the sensitivity analyses suggesting that the locus is probably associated with both age at menopause and estradiol levels.

Mendelian randomization

A total of 209,043 participants (96,432 males and 112,611 females) had BMD measurements and covariate information available, and were included in the MR analysis. Mean value for T-scores in males was −0.085, and for females −0.58. The average T-scores below zero agrees with the average age in UKB participant being higher than the general population, and thereby the BMD being lower compared to the mean BMD of respective sex. The instrument variables for the MR analyses were selected from the lead SNPs in the primary GWAS for males and females, respectively. For males, all significant lead SNPs and conditional SNPs were selected, resulting in 16 instruments (Table 3). The estimated effects on estradiol level (Supplementary Table S337) were taken from the primary GWAS for all instruments, also for the SNPs that were identified in the conditional analyses. Hence, the estimates for the conditional SNPs differ slightly from the ones in Table 2. Using GSMR, three instruments were identified as pleiotropic and were excluded from the primary analysis in males (Supplementary Table S337). We identified a causal effect of high estradiol levels on BMD in males (Table 3, Figure 4a). As estradiol was analyzed as a binary phenotype, the unit for the estimate from the MR can be interpreted as standard units increase in T-score associated with having estradiol levels above detection limit. Similar MR results were obtained using weighted median and MR-Egger, which do not remove pleiotropic SNPs. The MR-Egger intercept was not significantly different from zero, indicating that these results are not strongly influenced by directional pleiotropy.

View this table:
Table 3. Results of MR analyses
Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Mendelian randomization analyses to estimate the causal effect of estradiol on bone mineral density (BMD). (a) One-sample MR in UKB males, (b) One-sample MR in UKB females. (c) Two-sample MR with GEFOS males, and (d) Two-sample MR in GEFOS females. (e) One-Sample MR analysis with estradiol instruments selected in the UKB males, and MR performed in UKB females.

To get a reasonable number of instruments to be used for the MR analysis in females, we used a less strict P-value cutoff (P<1×10−7), resulting in a total of 4 instrumental variables (Supplementary Table S337) that were included in the analysis. In the GSMR analyses, the HEIDI-outlier flag was disabled in females, as there were fewer (<10) SNPs than recommended for this approach to work properly24. We identified a causal effect of high estradiol levels on BMD also in women (β=0.03, P=7.48×10−6, Figure 4b). All three alternative MR methods showed the same direction of effect, although the null hypothesis of no effect could not be rejected, and the MR egger intercept was not significantly different from zero (Table 3).

To further validate the MR results we also did a two-sample MR for males and females respectively using the instruments selected for estradiol in UKB and the GWAS summary statistics from the BMD GWAS in GEFOS26. A slightly different set of instrumental variables (Supplementary Table S337) had to be selected, since considerably fewer SNPs were analyzed in GEFOS due to their use of the HapMap reference panel for imputations. We included 8 instruments for the replication in males, and four in females. The MR estimates were in the same direction as the one-sample MR (Figure 4c, d), but with a larger effect in both males (β=0.18, P=0.00012) and females (β=0.41, P=3.49×10−5)

Previous concerns that age at menopause influences estradiol levels, could potentially render some of our selected instruments invalid since being affected by confounding (correlated horizontal) pleiotropy. We therefore also performed a third set of MR-analyses in females.

Here, we selected the instruments for estradiol from the GWAS in males, which should not be influenced by age at menopause. To reduce the risk for male-specific effects on estradiol levels, we filtered for SNPs that were significant also in females, after adjusting for the 16 instruments tested (P<0.0031), resulting in six instruments and used the estradiol estimates for females in UKB (Supplementary Table S337). Using the GSMR approach, we could identify a significant effect on BMD in females, similar to the effect estimated in males (β=0.16, P=4.97×10−6 (Table 3, Figure 4e). These results indicate that the effect in females is not driven by age at menopause.

Discussion

We have presented results from a large GWAS for estradiol levels in males and females. Many of the significant SNPs are annotated to genes with functions that are biologically relevant to estrogen metabolism. For example, by converting and transporting androgen and endogens, synthesis or elimination of steroid hormones. In males, we identified 14 loci, to be associated with serum estradiol levels, and another two independent SNPs on chromosome 2 and 15. In females, we identified two significant loci. One locus, within the CYP3A7 gene, overlaps with our findings in males, but the other locus, mapping to MCM8, was specific to females. However, a majority (eight) of the male loci, was at least nominally significant in females, even if the estimated effect size was lower. These results suggest that genetic effects on estradiol levels might differ between males and females. However, in premenopausal women, estradiol levels vary during the menstrual cycle, limiting our ability to estimate the genetic effects on estradiol in females. In postmenopausal women, on the other hand, estradiol levels drop rapidly, and it has previously been suggested that the estradiol levels in females are more likely to be determined by the number of years since menopause39. For those reasons, we performed sensitivity analyses, stratifying females by menopausal status, and also adjusting for age at menopause in the postmenopausal strata. The only locus being significantly different between pre- and postmenopausal women was CYP3A7. The largest effect was seen in postmenopausal women, followed by males, and then premenopausal women. CYP3A7 encodes cytochrome P450 CYP3A7, which metabolizes dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), a precursor of both androgen and estrogen synthesis, and shows catalytic activity for conversion of estrone to hydroxyestrogens40,41. As much as 75% of the circulating estrogens in premenopausal women and 50% of circulating androgens in men are known to be derived from DHEA. After menopause, DHEA is thought to be the major precursor of androgens and estrogens in females42. Interestingly, the effect of the CYP3A7 SNP disappeared when adjusting for SHBG and testosterone levels in females, but the effect was unaffected in males. However, CYP3A7 loses genome-wide significance when adjusting for testosterone levels. This suggests that CYP3A7 might have different functions in males and in females, as well as in pre-and in postmenopausal women. In postmenopausal women CYP3A7 appears to mainly influence estradiol levels by regulating the amount of available testosterone as a precursor for estrogen.

Several other loci, with previous links to estrogen metabolism were also identified. SULT2A1 encodes a sulfotransferase which are active on hydroxylated steroid hormones and bile acids30. Sulfotransferase 2A1, encoded by SULT2A1, mediates the sulfation of a wide range of steroids and sterols, including DHEA, a precursor of estrogen and testosterone. SULT2A1 was only associated with estradiol in males, and this association was similar (slightly stronger) when adjusting for testosterone and SHBG levels. Two of the most well-known loci, that has previously also been associated with estradiol in males in GWAS, are FAM9A and CYP19A112,15. Aromatase, encoded by CYP19A1, is a key enzyme in the synthesis of estradiol and estrone from testosterone and androstenedione, respectively43. The association to CYP19A1 was at least nominally significant, in both the pre- and postmenopausal women, as well as in all sensitivity analyses. The P-values were even numerically slightly lower when adjusting for SHBG and testosterone, which agrees with the function of the protein. FAM9A is exclusively expressed in testis59 and it is therefore not surprising that there was no association to FAM9A in females. Previously, FAM9A has also been associated with testosterone levels15, and our analyses indicates that the association was partly driven by associations to testosterone or SHBG levels. We could therefore conclude that the SNP at FAM9A is likely to affect both testosterone and estrogen metabolism. This signal also overlaps with a GWAS signal for male pattern baldness38, which further supports the importance of this locus. However, FAM9A, encodes the protein FAM9A, that has a rather unknown function. Also, the SNP is located between FAM9A and FAM9B and the annotation of this locus should therefore be interpreted with care.

We identified a strong association between estradiol levels and the SHBG locus. The SHBG gene encodes SHBG that has been linked to measurements of several other sex hormones previously16. SHBG is a glycoprotein that binds to sex hormones, including testosterone and estrogen, in the bloodstream, and thereby regulates the amount of bioavailable hormones44. Only 1–2% of sex hormones are unbound and therefore bioavailable45–47. The association to SHBG in males, completely disappeared after adjusting for SHBG levels. In females, there was a nominally significant association to SHBG in the primary GWAS, with the same direction of effect as in males. Interestingly, after adjusting for SHBG and testosterone levels, there was still an association (P=0.00033), but the effect was in the opposite direction. Similarly, an opposite effect between males and females has previously been seen for total testosterone, where there is a negative genetic correlation between total testosterone and SHBG in females, but a positive correlation in males16. This clearly illustrates the heterogenous effects between males and females for sex hormones. We also identified two associations to the X chromosome in males, one mapping to the AR gene, which encodes the androgen receptor. In mammals, the action of androgens acts through this single androgen receptor. In different tissues, the androgen receptor is activated by testosterone, or testosterone is first converted into dihydrotestosterone which is then the activating molecule48. Therefore, the androgen receptor plays an important role in sex differentiation, mainly through regulating gene expression49. Interestingly no association (P>0.05) was seen in females which might be due to the much lower levels of androgens in females. We also found an association to SRD5A2 which encodes 3-oxo-5-α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 and is located on chromosome 2. This enzyme catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to 5-α-dihydrogentestosterone27. Thus, the variant in SRD5A2 might influence estradiol levels in men by affecting the amount of testosterone available for conversion to estradiol. The SNP in SRD5A2 is nominally significant in females, an association that is more pronounced in postmenopausal women. There is also a conditional signal in males, 200 kb upstream, close to MEMO1 which encodes the mediator of ErbB2-driven cell motility 1 (MEMO1). In previous studies, it has been shown that MEMO1 regulates the extranuclear function of the estradiol receptor50, which is a possible link to estradiol levels. It is therefore possible that the GWAS signal on chromosome two, indeed represent associations with two different genes. Another interesting association is with FKBP4, which encodes FKBP52 (FK506-binding protein 4). FKBP52 has been show to regulate the androgen, glucocorticoid and progesterone receptor signaling pathways31, by playing an important role in the formation of steroid hormone nuclear receptors51. FKBP4 has been shown to regulate androgen receptor transactivation activity and also been linked to testosterone levels52. When adjusting for testosterone and SHBG levels, the FKBP4 association was weaker, and no longer significant.

Two loci, mapping to UGT2B7 and UGT3A1 were also identified. These two loci encode UDP-glycosyltransferases, which are responsible for the addition of sugars to a broad range of lipophilic molecules to improve the water solubility and thereby play a major role in elimination of potentially toxic xenobiotics and endogenous compounds. Both UGT3A1 and UGT2B7 have been shown to metabolize estrogens by glucuronidation, i.e., the transferring of glucuronic acid to the metabolites29,53,54. This suggests that UDP-glycosyltransferases might play a major role in estradiol metabolisms. Also, ABO encodes a glycosyltransferase that is known to modify carbohydrates on the red blood cell antigens. ABO is the gene that is responsible for the ABO blood groups28. The effect allele of our study (the A allele) is in LD with the non-O blood groups, indicating that men with a non-O blood type have lower estrogen levels, or the other way around, men with blood group O have higher levels. Since ABO and its histo-blood group properties have been linked to a vast number of diseases and functions, it is not unlikely that our finding is indicative of an association between ABO antigens and estradiol levels. The most well-known association for ABO, is that individuals with the O blood group have lower risk of cardiovascular diseases55, probably due to lower coagulation activity. There are very limited findings of a clear link between ABO and estrogen levels. However, one study found an interaction between ABO and HRT in relation to coagulation activity56. ABO antigens are present on most epithelial and endothelial cells as well as on T cells, B cells and platelets and are also detectable in most body fluids such as saliva57. Recently, ABO was linked to Covid-19, where the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested to be explained by modulation of sialic acid-containing receptors distributed on host cell surface58. Covid-19 has a higher mortality in males, which has been suggested to be linked to their lower estrogen levels59,60. We also identified several loci with less clear links to estrogen metabolism including LINC01324, IGHV3-7, RBBP8, and MCM8. MCM8 is the female-specific locus, where the lead SNP is a missense variant. Genetic variants in MCM8 have previously been associated with premature ovarian failure61,62, a condition that is characterized by low estrogen levels51. According to GTEx, MCM8 is highly expressed in both female and male reproductive organs, despite only being significant in the female GWAS cohort, which further support this locus as being involved in sex hormone metabolism.

We also performed MR analysis and estimated a causal effect of estradiol on BMD in males, and to our knowledge, for the first time also in females. Compared to previous studies in males, with not more than five SNPs as instruments for estradiol17, we included as many as 16 SNPs in males and four in females. Interestingly, the effect estimate was higher for females than males in the two-sample MR, which could agree with the fact that BMD decreases more rapidly in females by age. Estrogen can be used as a preventative treatment in postmenopausal women with low BMD63,64, to prevent osteoporosis, and our results were therefore not surprising. However, one concern that has been raised previously16, is that estradiol levels are driven by number of years till/from menopause. To reduce potential bias in our results due to instruments being associated with age at menopause, we applied a second approach where we used instruments from males, to minimize our instruments’ association to age at menopause. Using these instruments, we could replicate the MR results in women which suggests that age at menopause is not dramatically influencing our results.

One of the major strengths of this study is the large cohort from UKB with estradiol measurements available. However, only a subset of the participants had estradiol levels above detection limit. To increase the number of participants to analyze, we created a binary phenotype. Since normal levels of estradiol in males and postmenopausal women have a range below or just above the detection limit, we were not able to capture the full spectrum of individual variation in the cohort. Also, very few loci were identified in females. This could be due to hormone levels fluctuating during the menstrual cycle lowering the power to identify true genetic effects behind estradiol levels in premenopausal women. However, we also conducted a GWAS including only women that had entered menopause, which should give a more stable phenotype. However, no additional significant GWAS hits were identified, even if the number of participants in the GWAS was comparable to the GWAS in males, and the range of estradiol levels was comparable. This suggest that there is an underlying difference in genetic effects between sexes.

In summary, we have identified biologically relevant genetic loci associated with variation in estradiol levels in males and females and found differences in genetic effects between sexes. In addition, we used an MR approach to show that estradiol levels have a causal effect on good bone health in both males in females, confirming that estrogen replacement therapy may be a good treatment to prevent osteoporosis and prevent fractures in elderly of both sexes. Our findings support previous research on the synthesis of estradiol and its effects on bone mineral density, as well as provide new insights into the genetic components of estrogen regulation and metabolism.

Data Availability

The data used for this study is available for bona fide researchers from the UK Biobank Resource (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk/), and can be accessed by an application to the UK Biobank. GEFOS data included in this study can be downloaded from http://www.gefos.org.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4575527

Data Availability

The data used for this study is available for bona fide researchers from the UK Biobank Resource (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk/), and can be accessed by an application to the UK Biobank. GEFOS data included in this study can be downloaded from http://www.gefos.org.

Author contributions

W.E.E and Å.J designed the study; E.B, W.E.E, D.S performed the data analysis; D.S generated the figures; W.E.E, D.S and Å.J wrote the manuscript; W.E.E, T.K, D.S, E.B, Å.J, J.H interpreted the data, contributed to and reviewed the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests. The funding sources had no influence an took no part in the design or conduct of this research.

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted using the UKB Resource under applicationnumber 41143, following the restrictions on data availability set up by the UKB. We acknowledge all participants and staff involved in UKB for their valuable contribution. The computations were performed on resources provided by SNIC through Uppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational Science (UPPMAX) under project sens2017538. The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council (Å.J), and the cancer (Å.J), the brain (Å.J), the heart and lung (Å.J.), the Å Wiberg (W.E.E), M Borgström (W.E.E), Hedströms, K och O F (W.E.E), A and M Rudbergs (W.E.E) foundations.

Footnotes

  • Grants/Fellowships supporting paper: The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council (Å.J), the cancer foundation (Å.J), the brain foundation (Å.J), the Å Wiberg (W.E.E), M Borgström (W.E.E), Hedströms, K och O F (W.E.E), A and M Rudbergs (W.E.E) foundations.

  • Disclosure summary: Nothing to declare

References

  1. 1.↵
    Bates GW, Bowling M. Physiology of the female reproductive axis. Periodontol 2000. 2013;61(1):89–102. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2011.00409.xx
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Hess RA, Bunick D, Lee K-H, et al. A role for oestrogens in the male reproductive system. Nature. 1997;390(6659):509–512. doi:10.1038/37352
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Thomas MP, Potter BVL. The structural biology of oestrogen metabolism. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2013;137:27–49. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.12.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Cauley JA, Lucas FL, Kuller LH, Stone K, Browner W, Cummings SR. Elevated serum estradiol and testosterone concentrations are associated with a high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(4 I):270–277. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-130-4_part_1-199902160-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Rosendaal FR, Van Hylckama Vlieg A, Tanis BC, Helmerhorst FM. Estrogens, progestogens and thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2003;1(7):1371–1380. doi:10.1046/j.1538-7836.2003.00264.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Vikan T, Schirmer H, Njølstad I, Svartberg J. Low testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin levels and high estradiol levels are independent predictors of type 2 diabetes in men. Eur J Endocrinol. 2010;162(4):747–754. doi:10.1530/EJE-09-0943
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Manolagas SC, O’Brien CA, Almeida M. The role of estrogen and androgen receptors in bone health and disease. Nat Rev Endocrinol. Published online 2013. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2013.179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Väänänen HK, Härkönen PL. Estrogen and bone metabolism. Maturitas. Published online 1996. doi:10.1016/0378-5122(96)01015-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Longo DL, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Jameson JL, Loscalzo J. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. Vol 2012. Mcgraw-hill New York; 2012.
  10. 10.↵
    Riggs BL, Khosla S, Melton LJ. A Unitary Model for Involutional Osteoporosis: Estrogen Deficiency Causes Both Type I and Type II Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women and Contributes to Bone Loss in Aging Men. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13(5):763–773. doi:10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.5.763
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Pott J, Bae YJ, Horn K, et al. Genetic Association Study of Eight Steroid Hormones and Implications for Sexual Dimorphism of Coronary Artery Disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(11):5008–5023. doi:10.1210/jc.2019-00757
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Chen Z, Tao S, Gao Y, et al. Genome-wide association study of sex hormones, gonadotropins and sex hormone–binding protein in Chinese men. J Med Genet. 2013;50(12):794–801. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2013-101705
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.
    Liu M, Ingle JN, Fridley BL, et al. TSPYL5 SNPs: association with plasma estradiol concentrations and aromatase expression. Mol Endocrinol. 2013;27(4):657–670. doi:10.1210/me.2012-1397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.
    Prescott J, Thompson DJ, Kraft P, et al. Genome-wide association study of circulating estradiol, testosterone, and sex hormone-binding globulin in postmenopausal women. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e37815. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037815
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Eriksson AL, Perry JRB, Coviello AD, et al. Genetic determinants of circulating estrogen levels and evidence of a causal effect of estradiol on bone density in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(3):991–1004. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-02060
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Ruth KS, Day FR, Tyrrell J, et al. Using human genetics to understand the disease impacts of testosterone in men and women. Nat Med. 2020;26(2):252–258. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0751-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Nethander M, Vandenput L, Eriksson AL, Windahl S, Funck-Brentano T, Ohlsson C. Evidence of a Causal Effect of Estradiol on Fracture Risk in Men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(2):433–442. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-00934
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Nakamoto J, Salameh WA, Carlton E. Endocrine Testing. In: Jameson JL, De Groot LJBT-E (Sixth E, eds. Endocrinology. Elsevier; 2010:2802–2834. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4160-5583-9.00155-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Huang J, Ellinghaus D, Franke A, Howie B, Li Y. 1000 Genomes-based imputation identifies novel and refined associations for the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium phase 1 Data. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20(7):801–805. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Walter K, Min JL, Huang J, et al. The UK10K project identifies rare variants in health and disease. Nature. 2015;526(7571):82–89. doi:10.1038/nature14962
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Xu C, Tachmazidou I, Walter K, Ciampi A, Zeggini E, Greenwood CMT. Estimating genome-wide significance for whole-genome sequencing studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2014;38(4):281–290. doi:10.1002/gepi.21797
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Ward LD, Kellis M. HaploReg: A resource for exploring chromatin states, conservation, and regulatory motif alterations within sets of genetically linked variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(D1):D930–D934. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr917
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Carithers LJ, Moore HM. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project. Biopreserv Biobank. 2015;13(5):307–308. doi:10.1089/bio.2015.29031.hmm
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Zhu Z, Zheng Z, Zhang F, et al. Causal associations between risk factors and common diseases inferred from GWAS summary data. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):224. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02317-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):377–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Estrada K, Styrkarsdottir U, Evangelou E, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 56 bone mineral density loci and reveals 14 loci associated with risk of fracture. Nat Genet. 2012;44(5):491–501. doi:10.1038/ng.2249
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Makridakis NM, Di Salle E, Reichardt JKV. Biochemical and pharmacogenetic dissection of human steroid 5α-reductase type II. Pharmacogenetics. 2000;10(5):407–413. doi:10.1097/00008571-200007000-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Ogasawara K, Bannai M, Saitou N, et al. Extensive polymorphism of ABO blood group gene: Three major lineages of the alleles for the common ABO phenotypes. Hum Genet. 1996;97(6):777–783. doi:10.1007/BF02346189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Mackenzie PI, Rogers A, Treloar J, Jorgensen BR, Miners JO, Meech R. Identification of UDP Glycosyltransferase 3A1 as a UDP N-Acetylglucosaminyltransferase. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(52):36205–36210. doi:10.1074/jbc.M807961200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Riches Z, Stanley EL, Bloomer JC, Coughtrie MWH. bQuantitative evaluation of the expression and activity of five major sulfotransferases (SULTs) in human tissues: the SULT pie. Drug Metab Dispos. 2009;37(11):2255–2261. doi:10.1124/dmd.109.028399
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Sivils JC, Storer CL, Galigniana MD, Cox MB. Regulation of Steroid Hormone Receptor Function By the 52-kDa FK506-Binding Protein (FKBP52). Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2011;11(4):314. doi:10.1016/J.COPH.2011.03.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Yu X, Baer R. Nuclear localization and cell cycle-specific expression of CtIP, a protein that associates with the BRCA1 tumor suppressor. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(24):18541–18549. doi:10.1074/jbc.M909494199
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    Wong AKC, Ormonde PA, Pero R, et al. Characterization of a carboxy-terminal BRCA1 interacting protein. Oncogene. 1998;17(18):2279–2285. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1202150
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Wu M, Soler DR, Abba MC, et al. CtIP silencing as a novel mechanism of tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. Mol Cancer Res. 2007;5(12):1285–1295. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-07-0126
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Yang S, Xu J, Zeng X. A six-long non-coding RNA signature predicts prognosis in melanoma patients. Int J Oncol. 2018;52(4):1178–1188. doi:10.3892/ijo.2018.4268
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    Lee KY, Im JS, Shibata E, et al. MCM8-9 complex promotes resection of double-strand break ends by MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 complex. Nat Commun. 2015;6. doi:10.1038/ncomms8744
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Schmitz D, Ek WE, Berggren E, Höglund J, Karlsson T, Johansson Å. Genome-Wide Association Study of Estradiol Levels, and the Causal Effect of Estradiol on Bone Mineral Density, Supplementary Data. Zenodo. Published online March 3, 2021. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.4575528
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    Hagenaars SP, Hill WD, Harris SE, et al. Genetic prediction of male pattern baldness. Noethen MM, ed. PLOS Genet. 2017;13(2):e1006594. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006594
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Richardson H, Ho V, Pasquet R, et al. Baseline estrogen levels in postmenopausal women participating in the MAP.3 breast cancer chemoprevention trial. In: Menopause. Vol 27. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2020:693–700. doi:10.1097/GME.0000000000001568
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Lee AJ, Conney AH, Zhu BT. Human Cytochrome P450 3A7 Has a Distinct High Catalytic Activity for the 16α-Hydroxylation of Estrone but not 17β-Estradiol. Cancer Res. 2003;63(19):6532LP–6536. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/63/19/6532.abstract
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Ohmori S, Nakasa H, Asanome K, et al. Differential catalytic properties in metabolism of endogenous and exogenous substrates among CYP3A enzymes expressed in COS-7 cells. Biochim Biophys Acta - Gen Subj. 1998;1380(3):297–304. doi:10.1016/S0304-4165(97)00156-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Simpson ER, Davis SR. Minireview: Aromatase and the Regulation of Estrogen Biosynthesis—Some New Perspectives. Endocrinology. 2001;142(11):4589–4594. doi:10.1210/endo.142.11.8547
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    Sohl CD, Guengerich FP. Kinetic analysis of the three-step steroid aromatase reaction of human cytochrome P450 19A1. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(23):17734–17743. doi:10.1074/jbc.M110.123711
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Hammond GL. Access of reproductive steroids to target tissues. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2002;29(3):411–423. doi:10.1016/S0889-8545(02)00008-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    Coviello AD, Haring R, Wellons M, et al. A genome-wide association meta-analysis of circulating sex hormone-binding globulin reveals multiple loci implicated in sex steroid hormone regulation. PLoS Genet. 2012;8(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002805
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.
    Somboonporn W, Davis SR. Testosterone Effects on the Breast: Implications for Testosterone Therapy for Women. Endocr Rev. 2004;25(3):374–388. doi:10.1210/er.2003-0016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    Dunn JF, Nisula BC, Rodbard D. Transport of steroid hormones: Binding of 21 endogenous steroids to both testosterone-binding globulin and corticosteroid-binding globulin in human plasma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1981;53(1):58–68. doi:10.1210/jcem-53-1-58
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    SL D R B. Androgen physiology. Semin Reprod Med. 2006;24(2). doi:10.1055/S-2006-939565
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    Mooradian AD, Morley JE, Korenman SG. Biological actions of androgens. Endocr Rev. 1987;8(1):1–28. doi:10.1210/edrv-8-1-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    Jiang K, Yang Z, Cheng L, et al. Mediator of ERBB2-driven cell motility (MEMO) promotes extranuclear estrogen receptor signaling involving the growth factor receptors IGF1R and ERBB2. J Biol Chem. 2013;288(34):24590–24599. doi:10.1074/jbc.M113.467837
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    Hou Q, Gorski J, Daikoku T, et al. Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor genes are expressed differentially in mouse embryos during preimplantation development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90(20):9460–9464. doi:10.1073/pnas.90.20.9460
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    Chen H, Yong W, Hinds TD, et al. Fkbp52 regulates androgen receptor transactivation activity and male urethra morphogenesis. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(36):27776–27784. doi:10.1074/jbc.M110.156091
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    Dong M, Owens IS, Sheen YY. Cloning and expression of human liver UDP-glucuronosyltransferase cDNA, UDPGTh2. Arch Pharm Res. 1997;20(5):459–464. doi:10.1007/BF02973940
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Kallionpää RA, Järvinen E, Finel M. Glucuronidation of estrone and 16α-hydroxyestrone by human UGT enzymes: The key roles of UGT1A10 and UGT2B7. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2015;154:104–111. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2015.07.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Zhang H, Mooney CJ, Reilly MP. ABO Blood Groups and Cardiovascular Diseases. Int J Vasc Med. 2012;2012:641917. doi:10.1155/2012/641917
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Guimarães DAM, dos Santos MS, Gomes KB, et al. Interaction between oral estrogen plus progestogen therapy and ABO blood groups on coagulation activation in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2012;19(3):339–345. doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e31822b721f
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Schachter H, Michaels MA. A quantitative difference in the activity of blood group A-specific N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase in serum from A 1 and A 2 human subjects. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1971;45(4):1011–1018.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Silva-Filho JC, Melo CGF de, Oliveira JL de. The influence of ABO blood groups on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity: A molecular hypothesis based on carbohydrate-carbohydrate interactions. Med Hypotheses. 2020;144:110155. doi:10.1016/J.MEHY.2020.110155
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    Suba Z. Prevention and therapy of covid-19 via exogenous estrogen treatment for both male and female patients; An opinion paper. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2020;23(1):75–85. doi:10.18433/JPPS31069
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    Li Y, Jerkic M, Slutsky AS, Zhang H. Molecular mechanisms of sex bias differences in COVID-19 mortality. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):405. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03118-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    AlAsiri S, Basit S, Wood-Trageser MA, et al. Exome sequencing reveals MCM8 mutation underlies ovarian failure and chromosomal instability. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(1):258–262. doi:10.1172/JCI78473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    Dou X, Guo T, Li G, Zhou LG, Qin Y, Chen ZJ. Minichromosome maintenance complex component 8 mutations cause primary ovarian insufficiency. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1485-1489.e2. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.018
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    Lufkin EG, Wahner HW, O’Fallon WM, et al. Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with transdermal estrogen. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(1):1–9. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.↵
    Abdi F, Mobedi H, Bayat F, Mosaffa N, Dolatian M, Tehrani FR. The effects of transdermal estrogen delivery on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: A meta-analysis. Iran J Pharm Res. 2017;16(1):380–389. doi:10.22037/ijpr.2017.1967
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted July 05, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Genome-Wide Association Study of Estradiol Levels, and the Causal Effect of Estradiol on Bone Mineral Density
Daniel Schmitz, Weronica E. Ek, Elin Berggren, Julia Höglund, Torgny Karlsson, Åsa Johansson
medRxiv 2021.07.01.21259826; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259826
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area