Chapter 7 (Updated 10/26/12)
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus of Man: Genetic
Susceptibility and Resistance
1.
Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes,
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
2.
Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami
Though
there is heterogeneity for type 1A in age of diabetes onset1, age at which islet autoantibodies
first appear, rate of progression to diabetes2 and even completeness of beta cell
destruction3, overall the genetic determinants
are similar1.
Even latent Autoimmune Diabetes of adults appears to be a variant of
type 1A diabetes upon genetic analysis4.
This homogeneity is reflected in the islet autoantibodies expressed,
specific beta cell destruction within islets5,
6 and HLA associations. We believe that type 1A diabetes is driven
primarily by CD4 and CD8 T lymphocyte targeting of the molecule insulin (or
proinsulin) leading to the specific beta cell destruction7.
Thymic deletion of insulin reactive T cells for both man and animal
models8 is a critical determinant and
likely relates to diabetogenicity of the insulin gene VNTR and mutations of the
AIRE gene9,
10.
HLA alleles determine how and which islet peptides are recognized by
specific T cell receptors11 including the register in which
such peptides can be recognized by analogy with the NOD mouse12,
13.
Multiple additional genetic loci with smaller effects combine to
determine the probability of maintaining tolerance14 and thus patients with type 1A
diabetes are at risk for other autoimmune disorders related to both their
specific HLA alleles (e.g. DQ2 for type 1A and celiac disease) and less
characterized abnormalities of tolerance.
Already at onset of diabetes a third of the patients have multiple
autoimmune disorders15.
Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), or type 1
diabetes, is a chronic disease usually characterized by the autoimmune
destruction (Type 1 A) of pancreatic ß-cells and severe insulin deficiency 16-18. Completion of multiple large scale genome wide association studies19-22 has provided a clearer understanding of the genetic architecture of
Type 1A diabetes14, 22, 23. In particular the overwhelming
genetic determinants of Type 1A diabetes are in the major histocompatibility20 complex 14, 24. This is followed by insulin
gene polymorphisms, the T cell receptors signaling molecule PTPN22, and the
multiple (>40) loci with very small effects. Of note, there appears to be
little or no overlap between loci for Type 2 and Type 1 diabetes25. Type 1B diabetes refers to
insulin dependent diabetes not of immune etiology, is not the subject of this
chapter and has been difficult to diagnose.
It has been suggested that fulminant diabetes, found almost exclusively
in Japan, represents type 1B diabetes, but even these patients that lack
anti-islet autoantibodies, have HLA alleles associated with type 1 diabetes 26. An increasing number of
“monogenic” forms of diabetes are now recognized, some of which result in
severe beta cell loss (e.g. neonatal diabetes with insulin gene mutations27 while others create forms of diabetes that require no therapy (e.g
glucokinase mutations) or are better treated with sulfonylureas rather than insulin
including mutations of the sulfonylurea receptor28 and HNF1alpha mutations27, 29. Monogenic forms of diabetes
occur in approximately 1.5% of children developing diabetes. Thus defining whether a patient has the more
common form of diabetes in children, namely immune mediated diabetes has
assumed greater importance as correct genetic diagnosis can alter therapy. Testing of new onset children with an
inclusive series of anti-islet autoantibody assays (assays for GAD65,
IA-2(ICA512), insulin and ZnT8 autoantibodies) can now identify more than 90%
of children with type 1A diabetes, and can aid in defining (negative
autoantibodies) a subgroup of children with new onset diabetes with both
monogenic (including insulin gene mutations30) and particularly for teenagers,
children with type 2 diabetes. It is estimated that 10% of autoantibody
negative children have monogenic forms of diabetes. Recent studies of the pancreas of the NPOD
program indicate that a significant proportion of African American and Hispanic
American individuals with childhood onset diabetes have islet pathology that is
very different from classical Type A diabetes pathology with pseudoatrophic
islets (islets lacking all insulin producing beta cells)31. The etiology of this form of
Type 1 diabetes is unknown but is not associated with islet autoantibodies or
HLA DR3 and DR4 alleles and may be related to poorly characterized ketosis
prone diabetes, “Flatbush” or “Type 1.5” diabetes 32-34.
Type 1A diabetes frequently develops in children,
adolescents and young adults, but approximately half of individuals developing
type 1A diabetes first present as adults35. The disease is quite heterogeneous in its clinical expression and it
can be confused with type 2 diabetes, especially in those patients who develop
diabetes at a later age 36, 37. Inherited genetic factors influence both susceptibility to and
resistance to the disease. Although a significant proportion of patients with
type 1A diabetes lack a first degree family history for the disease(>85%),
there is significant familial clustering with an average prevalence of
approximately 6% diabetic for siblings compared to 0.4% in the US Caucasian
population. The familial clustering (λs) can be calculated as the ratio of
the risk to siblings over the disease prevalence in the general population, and
thus λs = 6/0.4 = 15 38, 39.
One’s
genetic susceptibility depends on the degree of genetic identity with the
proband. The risk of diabetes in family members has a non-linear correlation
with the number of alleles shared with the proband. The highest risk is
observed in monozygotic twins (100% sharing) followed by first, second and
third degree relatives (50%, 25%, 12.5% sharing, respectively). Based on such
estimates of observed risk, it has been suggested that diabetes susceptibility
may be linked to a major locus and that several other minor loci may contribute
to diabetes risk in an epistatic way. This model generates the risk curve that
best parallels the risk curve obtained from observed risk estimates 40. The moderate disease
concordance observed even amongst identical twins (usually 30-50%, 70% in
studies with longest follow-up) implies that inherited genes provide increased
susceptibility 41-45 with dizygotic twins having a risk
not appreciably different from siblings46.
Much
technological progress has facilitated the study of the genome to map disease susceptibility
genes for multi-factorial diseases, including the increasing availability of
microsatellite markers, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), automated
typing technology 47, and recently whole genome
SNP analysis 48. In the
case of type 1 diabetes, genome scans for IDDM susceptibility loci have been
facilitated by the availability of large c
It is also
possible that a subset of the disease is genetically heterogeneous, with
different loci determining disease risk
in different families. Genetic heterogeneity has been demonstrated in most of
the genome wide scans performed to date. The genetic heterogeneity can also be
demonstrated with the study of groups of monozygotic twins. When the first twin of a twin-pair develops
type 1 diabetes after age 25, the risk of the second monozygotic twin
developing type 1 diabetes is less than 5% with long-term follow up 44, while
approximately 60% of initially discordant twins whose twin mate developed
diabetes prior to age 6 have progressed to diabetes (by life table analysis
with 40 years of follow-up). For
monozygotic twins of patients with type 1 diabetes, expression of anti-islet
autoantibodies directly correlates with progression to overt diabetes. Essentially all such twins who express
“biochemical” anti-islet autoantibodies (to GAD, IA-2/ICA512, insulin, measured
by radioimmunoassays) progress to diabetes, some after decades of follow-up 52. In contrast, dizygotic twins have a low risk
of expressing anti-islet autoantibodies, a risk that is essentially identical
to that of siblings. These risk
estimates have been validated through the exchange of sera 53 and confirmed by a large
study of the DPT-1 (Diabetes Prevention Trial – Type 1) cohort
of at-risk relatives 44. Similar
results were obtained studying a population-based twin cohort of 22,650 twin pairs
from Finland, the country with the highest disease incidence in the world 54.

Figure 7.1 Diabetes-free
survival analysis of the combined Great Britain and United States cohorts, by
age at diagnosis in the index twin: Ages 0-24 years (n=150) in solid line, 25
years and older (n=37) in dashed line.
Besides
inherited alleles, other mechanisms regulating gene expression including
epigenetic and parent-of-origin effects may influence susceptibility by
modifying the transmission and transcription of inherited genes. It is also an intriguing possibility that
additional epigenetic factors or their expression may be acquired after birth,
perhaps through environmental exposures.
Thus, a variety of genetic mechanisms may influence the autoimmune
responses leading to ß-cell destruction. This chapter will review the current
knowledge about the genetics of type 1 diabetes in humans.

Figure
7.2. Odds ratios for a series of
identified “genes/genetic loci” from recent genome screens and replication
studies. In most cases the association is with a locus and not proven for the
genes indicated (Concannon et al NEJM).
Both
association studies and linkage analysis using various analytical methods have
been used to identify IDDM susceptibility loci.
These are conventionally noted using the abbreviation IDDM and a number,
e.g. IDDM1, IDDM2, etc., with the number usually reflecting the order in which
such loci were reported (Table 7.1 and Figure 7.2). Many of the early IDDM loci
appear at present to have been “false positives” and are generally being
replaced by more recent GWAS studies and in a few instances identified genes
(figure 7.2). Using the candidate gene
approach, association studies provided evidence for the first two
susceptibility loci, the HLA region (IDDM1)
and the insulin gene (INS) locus (IDDM2). These two loci contribute the
great majority of known familial clustering (Figure 7.2). One estimate is that the MHC alone contributes 41% of the
familial clustering of type 1 diabetes of the 48% estimated to be accounted for
with all known genes 50. The next most potent locus for type 1
diabetes of man, after the insulin gene, was also discovered using a candidate
gene approach, namely the PTPN22 (LYP) gene with an odds ratio of approximately
1.7 for a “missense” mutation that creates susceptibility to multiple
autoimmune disorders 55-57. Figure 7.2 illustrates odds ratio for
multiple loci summarized for GWAS studies.
The ratio of differences in frequencies, except for PTPN22 are
relatively small (Figure 7.3), making it unlikely that the other indicated loci
will contribute to the genetic prediction of type 1A diabetes, except through
combinatorial analysis58, 59, in
contrast to the HLA and insulin region genes.
For instance the HLA DR3/4-DQ2/8 genotype is present in 2.3% of newborns
in Colorado, but more than 30% of children developing diabetes, providing
“extreme” risk, as will be discussed subsequently. Compared to a population prevalence of type 1
diabetes of approximately 1/300, DR3/4-DQ2/8 newborns from the general
population have a 1/20 genetic risk 60. As will be discussed subsequently additional
loci within or linked to the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) can
increase this risk for first degree relatives of DR3/4-DQ2/8 newborns to as
high as 80% 51. Such extreme risk, suggests that for this
major subgroup of children, the bulk of familial aggregation is determined by
alleles of genes within or linked to the classic MHC, and the search for
additional (non-DR and DQ) genetic determinants in this region is underway 61-66.

Figure
7.3. Allele frequencies for case versus
control association studies with “significant” associations outside of the
major histocompatibility complex.
Prior to
the whole genome SNP analyses that have recently been reported, a number of
genome-wide studies of families and affected sibling-pairs have been performed
since the mid 1990’s in an attempt to identify susceptibility loci using
linkage analysis 67. Linkage analysis
confirmed linkage with IDDM1 (HLA)
and IDDM2 (insulin gene) and further
provided evidence for the existence of approximately 20 susceptibility loci.
Many of these loci show modest linkage and linkage is often not confirmed in
all genome scans. Sample size and composition, genetic heterogeneity and
analytical methods underlie much of the variability observed in these studies.
A coordinated effort to investigate the genetics of the disease, the Type 1
Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC) (www.t1dgc.org),
involves the study of patients and their families from around the world. In
2005 the consortium published its first report, with combined linkage analysis
of four datasets, three previously published genome scans, and a new
dataset of 254 families. This analysis included 1,435 families with 1,636
affected sibling pairs, representing one of the largest linkage
studies ever performed for any common disease and involving families from the
U.S., U.K. and Scandinavia 68. Given
the average map information content (67%, >400 polymorphic microsatellite
markers in each scan), this dataset had ~95% power to detect a locus with
S
1.3
and p= 10-4. With this analytical power, more than 80% of
the genome was found not to harbor susceptibility genes of modest effect that
could be detected by linkage. The study confirmed linkage with IDDM1
(nominal P = 2.0 x 10–52). Moreover, nine non–HLA-linked
regions showed some evidence of linkage (nominal P <
0.01), including three at (or near) genome-wide significance (P <
0.05): 2q31-q33, 10p14-q11, and 16q22-q24. In addition, after taking
into account the linkage at the 6p21 (HLA) region, there was evidence of linkage
with the 6q21 region (IDDM15). The published literature on these loci is
discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. A comprehensive list of these
initial susceptibility loci is shown in Table 7.1 with LOD scores and
S
from the 2005 T1DGC scan 68.
|
Locus |
Chromosome |
Candidate Genes |
Markers |
LOD
|
|
|
IDDM1 |
6p21.3 |
HLA DR/DQ
|
TNFA |
116.38 |
3.35 |
|
IDDM2 |
11p15.5 |
INSULIN VNTR
|
D11S922 |
1.87 |
1.16 |
|
PTPN22 |
1p13 |
PTPN22 (LYP)
|
SNP=R620W |
NR |
1.05 |
|
SUMO4 |
6q25
(IDDM5) |
SUMO4
|
SNP=M55VA
allele 163 [G] |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM3 |
15q26 |
|
D15S107 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM4 |
11q13.3 |
MDU1, ZFM1, RT6, ICE, LRP5, FADD, CD3 |
FGF3,
D11S1917 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM5 |
6q25 |
SUMO4,MnSOD |
ESR,
a046Xa9 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM6 |
18q12-q21 |
JK (Kidd), ZNF236 |
D18S487,
D18S64 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM7 |
2q31-33 |
NEUROD
|
D2S152,
D251391 |
3.34* |
1.19* |
|
IDDM8 |
6q25-27 |
|
D6S281,
D6S264, D6S446 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM9 |
3q21-25 |
|
D3S1303,
D10S193 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM10 |
10p11-q11 |
|
D10S1426,
D10S565 |
3.21 |
1.12 |
|
IDDM11 |
14q24.3-q31 |
ENSA, SEL-1L |
D14S67 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM12 |
2q33 |
CTLA-4 |
(AT)n 3 |
3.34 |
1.19 |
|
IDDM13 |
2q34 |
IGFBP2, IGFBP5, NEUROD,
HOXD8 |
D2S137,
D2S164, D2S1471 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM15 |
6q21 |
|
D6S283,
D6S434, D6S1580 |
22.39 |
1.56 |
|
IDDM16 |
14q32.3 |
IGH |
|
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM17 |
10q25 |
|
D10S1750,
D10S1773 |
NR |
NR |
|
IDDM18 |
5q31.1-33.1 |
IL-12B |
IL12B |
NR |
NR |
|
|
1q42 |
|
D1S1617 |
NR |
NR |
|
|
16p12-q11.1 |
|
D16S3131 |
1.88 |
1.17 |
|
|
16q22-q24 |
|
D16S504 |
2.64 |
1.19 |
|
|
17q25 |
|
|
NR |
NR |
|
|
19q11 |
|
|
NR |
NR |
|
|
3p13-p14 |
|
D3S1261 |
1.52 |
1.15 |
|
|
9q33-q34 |
|
D9S260 |
2.20 |
1.13 |
|
|
12q14-q12 |
|
D12S375 |
1.66 |
1.10 |
|
|
19p13.3-p.13.2 |
|
INSR |
1.92 |
1.15 |
The recent
whole genome screens, with increasing power suggest as indicated above that
many of the prior loci are either false positives, have such small effects that
they were not detected in the genome screens, or are related to only specific
populations, as for instance is suggested for the SUMO4 gene for only Asian
patients 69. Table 7.2 summarizes “significant” regions
for the whole Wellcome Trust case control study using the combined “control”
reference population of 7,670 controls compared to 2,000 patients with type 1
diabetes (The locus for IFIH1 did not reach “significance” in this Wellcome
whole genome analysis with the SNPs analyzed, but is included in Table 7.2
related to a follow-up study50).
|
Locus |
Chromosome |
Candidate Genes |
Markers |
P
(-10)
|
Hetero
OR |
Homo
OR |
|
IDDM1 |
6p21.3 |
HLA DR/DQ
|
rs9272346 |
134 |
5.49 |
18.52 |
|
IDDM2 |
11p15.5 |
INSULIN VNTR
|
rs689;rs3741208 |
|
|
|
|
PTPN22 |
1p13 |
PTPN22 (LYP)
|
rs6679677Rs2476601=R620W |
41 |
1.82 |
5.19 |
|
IDDM12 |
2q33 |
CTLA-4 |
rs3087243 (AT)n 3 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
2q24 |
IFIH1 |
Rs1990760 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
10p15 |
IL2RA(CD25) |
rs2104286;rs52580101;rs11594656;
rs706778; D10S1426,
D10S565 |
8 |
1.30 |
1.57 |
|
|
12q13 12q14-q12 |
?ERBB3 |
rs11171739,
rs2292239 D12S375 |
11 |
1.34 |
1.75 |
|
|
3p21 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
12q24 |
?C12orf30,SH2B3,TRAFD1,PTPN11 |
rs17696736,
rs3184504 |
14 |
1.34 |
1.94 |
|
|
16p13 (16p12-q11.1) |
KIAA0350 |
rs12708716 D16S3131 |
10 |
1.19 |
1.55 |
|
|
17q21 17q25 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
18p11 |
PTPN2 |
rs2542151;rs1893217; rs478582 |
7 |
1.30 |
1.62 |
|
|
18q22 |
?CD226 |
rs763361 |
|
|
|
|
|
22q13 |
?IL2RB |
rs229541 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
12p13 |
?CD69,
CLEC |
rs11052552 |
8 |
1.57 |
1.48 |
The major locus for type 1 diabetes susceptibility59