Skip to main content
Molecular Medicine logoLink to Molecular Medicine
. 2010 Aug 24;16(11-12):513–526. doi: 10.2119/molmed.2010.00052

Genome-Wide Association for Smoking Cessation Success in a Trial of Precessation Nicotine Replacement

George R Uhl 1,, Tomas Drgon 1, Catherine Johnson 1, Marco F Ramoni 2, Frederique M Behm 3, Jed E Rose 3
PMCID: PMC2972392  PMID: 20811658

Abstract

Abilities to successfully quit smoking display substantial evidence for heritability in classic and molecular genetic studies. Genome-wide association (GWA) studies have demonstrated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and haplotypes that distinguish successful quitters from individuals who were unable to quit smoking in clinical trial participants and in community samples. Many of the subjects in these clinical trial samples were aided by nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We now report novel GWA results from participants in a clinical trial that sought dose/response relationships for “precessation” NRT. In this trial, 369 European-American smokers were randomized to 21 or 42 mg NRT, initiated 2 wks before target quit dates. Ten-week continuous smoking abstinence was assessed on the basis of self-reports and carbon monoxide levels. SNP genotyping used Affymetrix 6.0 arrays. GWA results for smoking cessation success provided no P value that reached “genome-wide” significance. Compared with chance, these results do identify (a) more clustering of nominally positive results within small genomic regions, (b) more overlap between these genomic regions and those identified in six prior successful smoking cessation GWA studies and (c) sets of genes that fall into gene ontology categories that appear to be biologically relevant. The 1,000 SNPs with the strongest associations form a plausible Bayesian network; no such network is formed by randomly selected sets of SNPs. The data provide independent support, based on individual genotyping, for many loci previously nominated on the basis of data from genotyping in pooled DNA samples. These results provide further support for the idea that aid for smoking cessation may be personalized on the basis of genetic predictors of outcome.

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking is a significant cause of premature death and disease (1). Although abstinence reduces risks to smokers, success rates after attempts to quit smoking remain modest. One year after unaided attempts to quit smoking, abstinence rates are <5%. Even with pharmacologic aids that increase success, long-term abstinence rates are <25% (2). Twin studies document substantial heritability for smokers’ abilities to successfully abstain from smoking, suggesting substantial genetic components to individual differences in abilities to quit (3,4).

We recently reported genome-wide association (GWA) studies for success in quitting smoking in six independent samples of carefully monitored individuals who attempted to quit smoking in clinical trials or in community quitters, using carefully validated DNA pooling approaches (58). No result from any of these studies achieves “genome-wide” significance. However, the molecular genetic results from these independent samples display substantial convergence with each other (that is, the nominally positive results from each of these samples cluster in small chromosomal regions to extents much greater than expected by chance, and the same small chromosomal regions are identified by the clustered, nominally positive results from different samples to greater extents than those expected by chance) (5,913).

We report GWA studies of smoking cessation success in individually genotyped European-American participants in a smoking cessation trial that examined effects of 21 versus 42 mg/24 h precessation nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (14). Although the sample size is modest for GWA, we nevertheless described the highly significant overlap between the chromosomal regions identified in this work and those identified by nominally significant associations with successfully quitting in other studies of smoking cessation. We identify specific gene ontology classes into which candidate “quit success” genes (that are identified in these analyses) fall more often than expected by chance. We describe a Bayesian network into which the quit success–associated SNPs fall.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

Adult smokers who expressed desires to quit were recruited and screened at one of four North Carolina centers. Participants provided written informed consent; reported smoking an average of ≥10 cigarettes/day that each yielded ≥0.5 mg nicotine; displayed end-expired air carbon monoxide (CO) ≥10 ppm; failed to display any exclusionary features on history, physical examination or laboratory evaluations; and were compensated up to $140. Smokers were subdivided into low- and high-dependence subgroups (Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence [FTND] scores ≤6 or >6, respectively), and individuals in each of these subgroups were randomly assigned to 21 mg/24 h or 42 mg/24 h nicotine patch doses. During seven study sessions, brief supportive counseling was provided, clinical trial materials were dispensed and dependent measures were assessed. Dependent measures included measured end-expired air CO and reports of smoking, withdrawal symptoms and adverse effects including nausea and/or emesis.

Each participant wore two skin patches daily for 6 wks, beginning 2 wks before the target quit date. One 21-mg active patch (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) was applied in the morning. At noon, either another 21-mg patch (42 mg/day) or a placebo patch (Rejuvenation Labs, Cadillac, MI, USA) (21 mg/day) was applied. NRT doses were gradually reduced beginning 4 or 6 wks after the quit date for the 42 and 21 mg/24 h groups, respectively. Participants with sleep disturbances removed patches at bedtime and applied new ones upon awakening. Subjects experiencing other symptoms of nicotine toxicity reduced doses until symptoms abated according to the following sequence: reduce morning patch from 21 to 14 to 7 to 0 mg/day and then discontinue the afternoon patch. All participants were provided with denicotinized cigarettes (<0.05 mg nicotine yield; Vector Tobacco, Mebane, NC, USA) to smoke during the 2-wk precessation period.

The primary outcome—continuous abstinence from the target quit date through the end of treatment (10 wks)—was assessed on the basis of self-reports of continuous abstinence that were confirmed by end-expired CO levels ≤10 ppm. An intent-to-treat criterion was used. Participants who withdrew from the study or were lost to follow-up were classified as nonabstinent.

Genotyping and Assignment of Genetic Background Groups

DNA was extracted from blood, quantitated and genotyped by using Affymetrix 6.0 microarrays according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Genotypes for each individual passed Affymetrix quality control metrics with a contrast quality control threshold >0.4 and provided calls for >97% of SNP genotypes. Imputation using PLINK (15) with a confidence threshold >0.95 determined most missing genotype calls. We assessed data from 905,273 SNPs, of which 868,154 were autosomal, 36,862 were located on X and 257 were located on Y.

Genetic background was assigned for each individual on the basis of principal component analyses of data from all SNPs and was confirmed by self-report in almost all cases (14). Data from the 369 participants of European- American descent who were identified in this way are analyzed herein.

Analyses

Differences between allele frequencies in successful quitters versus unsuccessful quitters were compared by using the χ2 test. We performed preplanned primary “nontemplate” GWA analyses similar to those we have previously described (16). We identified SNPs that (a) display χ2 values with P < 0.01 “nominally positive” significance compared with data from individuals who were successful versus unsuccessful in quitting smoking and (b) cluster in small chromosomal regions, so that at least four of these nominally positive SNPs lie within 25 kb of at least one other positive SNP. A number of these clustered, nominally positive SNPs identify genes; many also lie between currently annotated genes.

To seek additional support for the chromosomal regions identified by these clusters of nominally positive SNPs, we sought additional association signals in these same regions from clustered, nominally positive SNPs identified in relevant independent GWA studies: (a) Uhl et al.: 1,000,000 SNP studies of smokers who quit versus those who continued to smoke in the “patch in practice” study of NRT in UK smokers (8,17); (b) Uhl et al.: 1,000,000 SNP GWA studies of smokers who quit versus those who continued to smoke in a clinical trial of denicotinized cigarettes (7); (c) Drgon et al.: 500,000 SNP GWA studies of smokers who quit versus those who continued to smoke in community settings (6); (d–f) each of three samples from Uhl et al.: 500–600,000 SNP GWA studies of smokers who were successful versus unsuccessful in quitting in clinical trial settings (5); and (g) Bierut et al.: 38,000 SNP GWA studies of nondependent (FTND) versus dependent (FTND) smokers (11). To provide insight into some of the genes likely to harbor variants that contribute to individual differences in ability to quit, we identify genes that are identified by clustered, nominally positive SNPs from the current sample and at least two other quit success or nicotine dependence samples.

We compare observed results for smoking cessation success to those expected by chance using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation trials, as described (18). For each trial, a randomly selected set of SNPs from the current data set was assessed to see if it provided results equal to or greater than the results that we actually observed. The number of Monte Carlo trials for which the randomly selected SNPs displayed (at least) the same features as the observed results was then tallied to generate an empirical P value. These simulations thus corrected for the number of repeated comparisons made in these analyses, an important consideration in evaluating these GWA data sets. We also performed permutation analyses using PLINK to provide a secondary assessment of significance.

To assess the power of our current approach for smoking cessation success, we used current sample sizes and standard deviations, the program PS v2.1.31 (19,20) and α = 0.05. To provide controls for the possibility that differences between quitters and nonquitters observed herein were due to occult ethnic/racial allele frequency differences or noisy assays, we assessed the overlap between the results obtained here and the SNPs that displayed the largest (a) allele frequency differences between African-American versus European-American control individuals and (b) the largest assay “noise.”

Bayesian networks are probabilistic graphical models that represent a set of variables as nodes and their conditional interdependencies as edges. These networks thus provide data-driven probabilistic classifications that can identify ways in which results from sets of SNPs provide a reasonable network, which SNPs provide the most direct relationship to quit success and which SNPs provide a more indirect relationship to quit success. We thus used BayesWare (Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods; BayesWare™, http://www.bayesware.com) to seek networks for sets of the 25, 50, 100, 200, 500 and 1,000 SNPs that displayed the strongest evidence for association with quit success from the current data, or from sets of 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 SNPs that came from lists in which there were random relationships between the P values and SNPs. The numbers of SNPs included in the networks formed were tabulated for each set of SNPs from true and permuted control data sets. The network based on 1,000 true SNPs was used for subsequent analyses that sought relationships between SNPs and quit success and between SNPs in the inner versus outer circles of this Bayesian network.

Gene ontology analyses were performed in BioBase™. The gene names in lists of genes identified by clustered, nominally significant results were matched to BioBase gene annotations. Functional enrichment analyses were performed by using “biological process” gene ontology (GO) terms as defined in the BioBase knowledge base. Functional enrichment was tested by using hypergeometric tests. To provide a control, random gene lists of the same size were assembled from the list of all genes using a Perl script (Drgon et al., unpublished data); GO analysis was then performed on these random gene lists. The hypergeometric test P value distributions of the randomized gene lists analyses were compared with the P value distributions obtained from GO analysis of the bona fide lists.

RESULTS

Unsuccessful Versus Successful Quitters

When comparing data from European-American trial participants who were unsuccessful with successful quitters, there is significant clustering of nominally positive SNPs in small chromosomal regions. Thus, there are 5,898 “nominally positive” SNPs with nominal P < 0.01. A total of 2,147 of these SNPs lie in 338 clusters, each containing at least four nominally positive SNPs separated from each other by ≤25 kb. We would expect eight such clusters by chance (Monte Carlo P < 0.0001). A total of 176 of the regions identified by these clustered, nominally positive SNPs contain a total of 206 genes (Table 1). None of 10,000 permutation tests in which individuals were randomly assigned to be “pseudo abstinent” or “pseudo nonabstinent” ever identified as many SNPs that achieved nominally significant results and that clustered in small chromosomal regions as found in the actual data set (thus P < 0.0001).

Table 1.

Genomic regions that contain clustered, nominally positive SNPs for success in smoking cessation.

Chromosome bp: Start bp: End No. SNPs Gene(s) Pmin SNP Pmin
1 4,514,682 4,527,839 5 rs241275 5.10E-04
1 6,632,197 6,693,727 9 DNAJC11 rs7549198 9.61E-04
1 10,231,218 10,268,359 5 KIF1B rs17034615 4.40E-04
1 23,620,353 23,638,820 6 DDEFL1 and TCEA3 rs1077514 6.38E-03
1 34,455,349 34,457,938 4 C1orf94 rs10158529 1.09E-03
1 37,211,157 37,308,655 8 GRIK3 rs12077898 7.80E-05
1 57,609,677 57,646,636 9 DAB1 rs2405994 8.50E-05
1 67,964,539 67,970,259 5 GNG12 rs2803462 1.93E-03
1 88,442,597 88,446,200 4 rs1336577 2.01E-03
1 89,531,807 89,553,114 5 rs4658084 4.67E-03
1 89,873,914 89,908,021 7 LRRC8C rs10801757 2.17E-03
1 96,268,987 96,289,166 4 rs161107 1.65E-04
1 111,376,530 111,506,446 16 CEPT1 and TMEM77 rs7551294 1.39E-04
1 114,328,943 114,369,687 5 HIPK1 and OLFML3 rs3006998 4.01E-03
1 154,610,316 154,623,104 4 RHBG rs942679 2.95E-03
1 166,614,722 166,624,383 7 MIRN557 rs2268546 8.65E-04
1 170,094,146 170,139,395 7 DNM3 rs6660011 3.70E-05
1 172,111,855 172,158,440 14 SERPINC1 rs6663875 9.37E-04
1 175,222,602 175,247,214 6 ASTN rs228002 5.90E-03
1 193,993,579 194,086,960 19 rs2942926 1.79E-03
1 196,958,987 197,044,377 10 PTPRC rs6696533 8.26E-04
1 220,660,638 220,663,363 7 rs11591051 4.15E-04
1 227,859,399 227,870,277 5 KIAA0133 rs879265 2.47E-03
1 245,318,105 245,338,921 4 ZNF669 rs6426218 5.47E-04
2 16,804,278 16,827,433 4 rs1035308 1.43E-04
2 18,819,735 18,844,740 4 rs6531118 1.55E-03
2 21,042,552 21,057,986 5 rs6544366 3.23E-03
2 24,800,554 24,850,219 4 NCOA1 rs11682130 1.47E-03
2 38,048,618 38,105,376 11 FAM82A rs1348748 9.95E-04
2 43,128,594 43,141,133 4 rs4953720 4.41E-03
2 45,387,134 45,403,164 4 rs12473388 1.08E-03
2 46,271,312 46,310,086 8 PRKCE rs2218549 2.89E-03
2 47,337,642 47,344,246 4 rs6755555 2.29E-03
2 67,972,791 68,001,847 4 rs2047816 2.26E-03
2 79,973,446 79,998,431 6 CTNNA2 rs1434098 5.96E-05
2 85,376,787 85,422,321 7 TCF7L1 and TGOLN2 rs1061782 6.19E-05
2 108,178,476 108,251,772 8 SULT1C3 rs12712018 7.01E-04
2 123,072,621 123,097,366 4 rs13427932 4.17E-03
2 127,092,461 127,095,999 4 rs6760443 8.73E-03
2 130,043,114 130,130,607 16 rs3109254 9.19E-05
2 136,523,244 136,535,189 5 rs11693502 7.14E-04
2 137,369,412 137,413,690 13 rs567483 2.74E-03
2 139,920,877 139,994,049 7 rs10200212 4.38E-03
2 148,004,334 148,011,288 4 rs12691758 6.93E-03
2 173,519,672 173,586,587 10 RAPGEF4 rs3754753 2.69E-04
2 183,108,430 183,112,207 4 rs1430154 1.25E-03
2 183,154,780 183,173,866 4 rs1527878 1.81E-04
2 206,296,221 206,302,386 5 NRP2 rs868196 3.58E-03
2 222,633,911 222,677,368 11 rs348995 2.59E-03
2 224,266,128 224,288,164 6 rs1992191 6.10E-04
2 229,320,230 229,349,994 4 rs7589424 1.14E-04
2 229,515,119 229,536,702 4 rs7593561 6.00E-04
3 14,674,247 14,690,891 4 C3orf19 rs2276754 2.49E-03
3 15,386,896 15,439,322 6 METTL6 rs6442522 6.31E-04
3 15,469,006 15,477,134 6 COLQ rs12633820 4.61E-03
3 20,739,135 20,755,593 4 rs4610242 1.83E-04
3 29,306,863 29,326,141 4 RBMS3 rs1025644 7.19E-05
3 32,190,375 32,194,730 4 GPD1L rs6784980 4.43E-03
3 59,994,590 60,038,259 8 FHIT rs212059 9.10E-04
3 61,209,872 61,228,928 5 FHIT rs815718 3.58E-04
3 65,279,856 65,286,293 4 rs1479959 1.60E-03
3 72,417,549 72,453,713 4 rs4677135 3.64E-05
3 106,744,838 106,779,003 4 ALCAM rs526297 4.33E-03
3 110,125,036 110,153,292 4 GUCA1C rs2593962 1.27E-03
3 111,630,473 111,640,366 4 rs12632602 6.97E-03
3 111,669,241 111,693,318 8 rs11715989 2.02E-03
3 120,865,217 120,894,965 6 COX17 rs13091305 2.03E-03
3 121,481,748 121,485,834 4 rs4146299 2.66E-04
3 129,575,855 129,610,333 6 EEFSEC rs7373685 3.55E-03
3 138,330,528 138,421,502 13 rs1461512 1.23E-04
3 144,583,316 144,615,415 4 SLC9A9 rs11707857 3.95E-03
3 145,284,332 145,302,343 6 rs1530479 1.46E-03
3 145,735,062 145,784,349 4 rs12631899 5.29E-03
3 149,689,756 149,704,154 4 rs35942196 2.00E-03
3 154,252,230 154,297,605 8 rs515099 3.05E-03
3 169,420,213 169,432,275 4 rs2067678 4.65E-03
3 180,872,350 180,943,519 11 USP13 rs4854948 5.98E-05
3 184,522,643 184,559,448 8 MCF2L2 rs9882117 2.23E-05
3 188,467,212 188,480,342 4 MASP1 rs710471 6.01E-04
3 188,885,209 188,900,089 4 RTP2 rs10937316 5.91E-03
3 189,170,534 189,221,370 9 rs1348637 2.75E-05
3 190,539,426 190,548,763 4 rs13059863 3.64E-04
3 190,648,097 190,715,335 15 rs2633448 1.09E-03
3 190,815,442 190,827,550 4 TP73L rs4398409 2.20E-03
3 191,257,452 191,290,326 9 LEPREL1 rs9879082 1.20E-03
3 191,960,031 191,960,376 4 rs9858906 5.22E-03
3 193,616,813 193,633,511 5 FGF12 rs6444640 7.21E-04
3 198,680,894 198,694,948 4 rs1897298 7.42E-03
4 5,680,199 5,690,519 4 EVC2 rs13133528 9.58E-04
4 23,835,312 23,885,637 10 rs10023214 3.23E-05
4 54,097,128 54,112,431 4 LNX1 rs11723168 1.58E-03
4 64,201,517 64,229,222 10 rs1961776 1.39E-03
4 70,481,520 70,549,400 13 UGT2A1 rs7662309 1.91E-04
4 96,613,817 96,647,190 6 UNC5C rs7697199 5.73E-04
4 106,794,718 106,813,023 5 rs17036090 7.95E-04
4 106,921,128 106,950,112 4 GSTCD rs11732298 5.93E-04
4 126,643,891 126,694,831 11 rs13112740 6.38E-04
4 148,647,977 148,659,051 4 EDNRA and GTF2F2L rs7674137 1.41E-03
4 180,561,608 180,602,617 4 rs17090633 2.39E-05
4 180,638,793 180,675,229 10 rs2681357 1.95E-04
4 180,817,055 180,846,530 5 rs17067909 6.16E-04
4 181,395,374 181,434,417 5 rs10007307 2.24E-03
4 184,506,382 184,515,862 5 rs4862161 5.46E-04
5 3,127,414 3,132,233 6 rs10475190 6.72E-05
5 3,225,052 3,266,546 7 rs1215667 4.03E-04
5 24,128,887 24,146,110 6 rs17444609 3.31E-03
5 30,609,959 30,638,252 4 rs4091500 2.59E-03
5 31,427,481 31,456,427 6 RNASEN rs2330693 3.59E-04
5 33,797,323 33,828,213 4 ADAMTS12 rs10062147 1.34E-03
5 51,906,987 51,933,802 4 rs350431 9.88E-04
5 56,136,753 56,154,632 5 MAP3K1 rs1423621 6.54E-03
5 58,334,117 58,349,350 4 PDE4D rs7727206 7.03E-03
5 66,773,558 66,827,933 6 rs747919 9.91E-04
5 108,544,843 108,586,419 8 FER rs11240992 1.80E-04
5 108,619,178 108,619,907 4 rs1363212 7.04E-04
5 115,313,413 115,329,965 6 FLJ90650 rs4920898 1.79E-03
5 131,752,849 131,771,364 8 SLC22A5 rs6596075 8.90E-04
5 148,737,396 148,748,096 4 IL17B rs353275 2.60E-03
5 155,340,456 155,354,167 4 rs6866134 5.53E-03
5 155,681,772 155,746,581 17 SGCD rs7722398 6.05E-04
5 168,238,733 168,254,799 6 SLIT3 rs11742567 2.41E-04
5 169,729,345 169,754,582 5 KCNMB1 and KCNIP1 rs7726856 3.78E-03
5 171,754,276 171,773,330 5 SH3PXD2B rs13356223 7.01E-03
5 172,891,689 172,951,609 12 rs735059 1.37E-04
6 1,234,462 1,296,928 8 FOXQ1 rs12201633 1.62E-04
6 1,385,456 1,400,822 5 rs9328053 3.15E-04
6 2,607,546 2,627,058 5 rs6939996 3.59E-04
6 77,557,859 77,650,512 10 rs13219726 2.03E-04
6 82,378,692 82,412,699 5 rs10943827 6.04E-04
6 86,222,521 86,253,709 5 NT5E rs4373339 4.54E-03
6 97,549,867 97,576,111 6 KIAA1900 rs6924307 1.56E-03
6 101,914,228 101,951,050 7 GRIK2 rs1832411 3.19E-03
6 106,107,523 106,120,691 4 rs4946673 7.21E-04
6 112,454,425 112,464,056 4 rs4947157 1.44E-03
6 115,333,820 115,390,578 4 rs4945528 1.78E-03
6 132,881,158 132,901,302 6 STX7 rs2840839 1.08E-03
6 149,165,112 149,209,898 6 UST rs9498164 8.60E-04
6 161,599,178 161,612,276 5 AGPAT4 rs747866 1.75E-03
6 162,757,512 162,770,899 6 PARK2 rs9295187 5.03E-03
6 166,432,591 166,437,713 5 rs1445277 3.99E-03
7 4,303,003 4,305,939 4 rs10232703 1.24E-03
7 13,661,977 13,668,606 6 rs10260350 8.62E-03
7 14,697,226 14,721,583 4 DGKB rs6947566 4.02E-03
7 17,978,277 18,049,332 10 PRPS1L1 rs4236293 6.58E-04
7 42,497,140 42,554,082 13 rs1991769 1.45E-04
7 42,634,401 42,693,143 7 rs2583879 1.68E-03
7 49,183,816 49,227,470 10 rs6963695 7.37E-04
7 77,878,213 77,888,531 6 MAGI2 rs6967983 1.66E-03
7 79,652,863 79,688,271 5 GNAI1 rs6973616 2.89E-03
7 83,543,807 83,573,774 12 SEMA3A rs17298417 2.22E-03
7 112,553,318 112,589,711 11 rs10252483 4.84E-05
7 123,087,091 123,137,160 7 WASL rs1005567 2.05E-03
7 141,952,539 141,996,982 4 TRB@ and TRBV17-15 rs12703485 2.02E-03
7 149,982,834 150,023,276 7 GIMAP2 rs6965369 1.12E-03
7 150,061,644 150,077,753 8 GIMAP3P and GIMAP5 rs6972271 1.43E-04
7 155,991,372 156,020,645 5 rs1543989 7.32E-04
8 3,032,637 3,051,975 6 CSMD1 rs12545450 9.18E-04
8 8,972,080 9,013,363 8 RNU7P4 rs11775551 5.07E-04
8 13,209,117 13,220,673 5 DLC1 rs13271362 4.68E-03
8 16,579,753 16,599,436 5 rs4922125 2.56E-03
8 18,724,146 18,757,428 12 PSD3 rs6992325 6.82E-05
8 18,862,099 18,898,958 6 PSD3 rs1426918 1.15E-03
8 26,881,502 26,895,504 4 rs13280864 5.55E-03
8 40,359,266 40,379,708 9 rs11776669 2.08E-03
8 59,580,896 59,609,008 5 rs1582824 4.78E-03
8 83,983,766 84,024,130 9 rs1449827 2.05E-03
8 85,313,939 85,345,627 4 rs13261650 2.10E-04
8 85,492,450 85,530,449 7 rs317954 1.02E-04
8 118,454,399 118,479,415 4 rs2635123 2.93E-03
8 131,903,175 131,948,250 4 ADCY8 rs7843541 7.12E-04
8 134,090,570 134,109,272 4 TG rs10110664 1.03E-03
8 134,582,532 134,610,513 5 ST3GAL1 rs10100754 1.02E-03
8 135,306,059 135,343,379 9 rs12542306 6.36E-04
8 135,573,080 135,605,416 4 ZNF406 rs7010252 1.71E-04
8 139,722,571 139,745,264 6 COL22A1 rs13271565 1.88E-03
8 140,660,752 140,683,139 4 rs2111571 1.74E-04
9 2,295,133 2,320,907 6 rs17407787 6.69E-04
9 8,941,749 8,979,686 4 PTPRD rs10977426 1.83E-03
9 10,541,203 10,572,586 6 rs1322281 9.02E-04
9 11,281,395 11,329,109 4 rs2171661 3.10E-04
9 11,356,549 11,425,129 9 rs10959753 3.89E-04
9 11,455,508 11,491,589 4 rs10959836 1.33E-04
9 11,673,979 11,737,876 11 rs372412 4.65E-05
9 11,764,821 11,792,691 6 rs12377084 6.90E-04
9 13,944,734 13,960,315 4 rs17192702 1.47E-03
9 14,161,645 14,190,005 7 NFIB rs12377502 9.96E-04
9 20,872,525 20,886,938 5 KIAA1797 rs10738569 3.89E-03
9 21,836,285 21,884,495 6 MTAP rs7850937 4.05E-03
9 24,895,556 24,966,888 6 rs4514074 3.41E-04
9 27,739,775 27,782,012 5 rs10812663 3.09E-04
9 32,922,194 32,989,419 6 APTX rs10813916 5.19E-04
9 70,652,673 70,685,840 4 PIP5K1B rs11143995 1.81E-03
9 77,455,592 77,461,845 4 rs4745430 5.21E-04
9 85,456,055 85,518,478 8 UBQLN1 rs10746721 2.86E-03
9 100,370,139 100,378,998 4 GABBR2 rs2779524 6.42E-03
9 109,843,796 109,876,206 6 rs10481656 1.94E-03
9 110,451,542 110,499,911 5 rs12350675 1.44E-03
9 115,927,888 115,961,345 5 COL27A1 rs2002284 1.77E-03
9 116,490,065 116,516,444 5 rs10123202 2.68E-03
9 119,676,622 119,710,655 7 rs4836705 1.10E-03
9 130,590,543 130,622,446 6 TBC1D13, C9orf114, and ENDOG rs2977998 2.83E-03
10 530,161 537,658 4 DIP2C rs885593 3.47E-03
10 609,316 626,509 4 DIP2C rs12245224 8.59E-05
10 2,107,537 2,136,617 4 rs964291 4.56E-03
10 8,551,393 8,572,641 6 rs10795631 1.14E-03
10 15,375,814 15,441,543 11 C10orf38 rs10906883 3.28E-04
10 44,746,622 44,772,461 4 RASSF4 rs6593452 8.61E-04
10 59,011,566 59,034,855 4 rs12778784 1.78E-03
10 60,128,925 60,134,399 4 BICC1 rs11006230 4.11E-03
10 72,378,282 72,407,490 4 rs827287 2.87E-04
10 72,463,858 72,480,077 5 rs12261506 1.62E-03
10 82,518,813 82,553,424 5 rs1863044 1.06E-04
10 115,419,114 115,503,088 13 CASP7 and C10orf81 rs7085113 8.74E-04
10 123,053,164 123,085,176 4 rs11199898 2.11E-03
11 4,365,143 4,391,233 5 TRIM21 rs1426378 2.06E-03
11 17,542,957 17,557,795 4 OTOG rs757985 1.83E-04
11 17,900,240 17,932,697 8 SERGEF rs11603299 3.05E-03
11 30,708,854 30,731,101 11 rs628029 7.43E-04
11 35,294,776 35,334,645 7 SLC1A2 rs4756221 3.53E-03
11 40,418,273 40,436,826 6 rs11035841 3.56E-03
11 40,465,084 40,512,119 4 rs979531 5.18E-03
11 64,026,514 64,066,226 9 rs6421690 1.94E-03
11 71,935,566 71,947,033 4 rs4943927 2.54E-03
11 85,536,065 85,583,777 4 rs12786057 2.29E-04
11 91,737,172 91,777,262 5 FAT3 rs11019944 6.61E-03
11 113,321,587 113,348,687 4 HTR3B rs17116164 3.07E-03
11 114,126,679 114,146,011 5 rs4145058 5.27E-03
11 117,459,594 117,514,489 10 TMPRSS4 and SCN4B rs10790240 2.49E-03
11 121,667,158 121,693,657 4 rs485139 3.85E-03
11 125,461,319 125,532,083 6 rs668171 3.89E-04
12 10,012,614 10,050,191 9 CLEC12A, CLEC1B, and CLEC12B rs479499 1.45E-03
12 23,632,891 23,661,597 4 SOX5 rs17383893 6.67E-03
12 23,941,586 23,968,615 6 SOX5 rs7970953 9.15E-04
12 43,268,257 43,287,053 5 NELL2 rs10506250 5.34E-04
12 54,252,624 54,262,230 4 OR2AP1 rs2371189 6.81E-05
12 54,317,540 54,339,134 6 OR10AE3P, PSMB3P, and OR10P1 rs10876844 9.08E-04
12 83,408,629 83,450,589 10 rs1031681 2.52E-03
12 86,192,156 86,204,576 5 rs17577874 5.81E-03
12 87,365,359 87,371,132 4 rs10858738 2.11E-03
12 93,106,608 93,149,172 5 PLXNC1 rs7307255 3.59E-03
12 96,863,518 96,876,686 5 rs11109296 2.01E-03
12 100,517,711 100,531,564 8 MYBPC1 rs11830848 6.08E-04
12 102,435,173 102,466,844 6 rs4540923 3.43E-04
12 107,684,502 107,707,330 5 SSH1 rs744043 4.03E-03
12 130,029,070 130,044,192 4 GPR133 rs11061274 3.89E-03
12 130,440,792 130,468,902 7 rs7135162 2.24E-04
13 23,537,175 23,552,362 8 rs12872637 7.95E-04
13 29,334,889 29,356,737 5 rs7321345 3.15E-04
13 35,009,742 35,042,078 9 NBEA rs9544663 2.21E-04
13 39,636,316 39,658,938 4 rs2039623 7.70E-04
13 39,697,109 39,749,380 12 rs10492680 8.11E-04
13 43,735,145 43,791,548 10 rs2031996 4.95E-04
13 47,139,485 47,154,561 4 rs1172397 1.13E-03
13 58,512,555 58,540,818 5 rs4600350 8.61E-04
13 75,251,157 75,282,563 5 LMO7 rs17065046 1.42E-03
13 89,698,915 89,734,895 5 rs16944259 1.08E-03
13 89,897,985 89,939,352 6 rs9522984 1.66E-03
13 92,323,593 92,395,330 11 rs7328931 4.09E-04
13 93,396,157 93,497,436 17 GPC6 rs8000417 1.75E-04
13 95,989,215 96,008,274 9 HS6ST3 rs7323727 2.38E-03
13 97,955,399 97,988,906 4 STK24 rs17471066 5.34E-04
14 24,453,213 24,477,023 4 STXBP6 rs12232232 5.68E-03
14 32,965,535 32,990,025 4 NPAS3 rs10129955 3.76E-03
14 33,068,792 33,082,637 12 NPAS3 rs10134389 3.20E-04
14 36,253,365 36,272,464 4 SLC25A21 rs17105125 1.69E-03
14 50,894,900 50,900,116 4 rs8019638 4.06E-04
14 71,757,205 71,849,388 15 RGS6 rs2283394 2.26E-03
14 71,877,312 71,953,627 17 RGS6 rs7159300 4.28E-06
14 84,233,182 84,262,668 4 rs4904196 9.40E-04
14 95,518,120 95,526,439 4 rs17093634 7.89E-04
14 95,602,656 95,625,170 5 C14orf132 rs3208738 1.73E-03
14 95,673,756 95,705,352 4 rs10144552 2.01E-03
14 97,249,110 97,257,396 5 rs4905614 3.64E-04
14 97,287,217 97,294,334 4 rs11160403 1.74E-04
15 23,924,404 23,944,630 4 rs17669037 2.63E-03
15 51,558,394 51,611,521 9 WDR72 rs1995318 3.39E-05
15 52,031,769 52,034,625 5 rs1478190 3.54E-04
15 58,117,071 58,142,791 4 rs1425935 2.64E-03
15 68,562,262 68,579,051 7 rs7161778 1.67E-03
15 78,442,521 78,453,010 5 rs11072909 6.12E-03
15 93,340,362 93,368,675 4 rs8036547 1.41E-03
16 4,461,750 4,482,118 4 HMOX2 rs17137051 3.76E-04
16 6,646,077 6,659,894 6 A2BP1 rs1029967 1.52E-03
16 11,253,200 11,296,549 4 SOCS1 rs193778 6.38E-04
16 15,777,026 15,787,511 6 MYH11 rs8048077 1.91E-03
16 24,007,245 24,024,978 4 PRKCB1 rs2470688 2.95E-03
16 26,116,243 26,150,812 6 rs763980 5.97E-05
16 49,031,049 49,060,345 4 rs1592538 3.70E-03
16 53,536,288 53,547,149 4 rs8054521 5.77E-03
16 54,055,550 54,067,401 4 MMP2 rs12924764 5.38E-03
16 62,400,870 62,475,972 12 rs322575 5.08E-04
16 82,329,363 82,384,267 7 CDH13 rs690836 3.57E-03
17 10,621,615 10,628,617 4 rs9897496 3.37E-04
17 12,053,119 12,060,510 6 rs9910495 1.23E-03
17 19,117,656 19,175,068 8 EPN2 rs3785778 7.51E-04
17 61,942,803 61,966,341 9 PRKCA rs16959526 7.42E-04
17 73,899,797 73,911,147 7 PGS1 rs12944051 4.72E-03
17 76,176,198 76,219,409 4 KIAA1303 rs11653499 7.29E-03
17 76,321,112 76,357,049 4 KIAA1303 rs9899782 1.50E-03
18 5,503,917 5,517,864 4 EPB41L3 rs1618055 2.33E-03
18 24,500,885 24,521,689 4 rs16945100 3.75E-03
18 34,074,362 34,089,743 7 rs8083420 2.22E-03
18 41,488,464 41,498,356 10 SLC14A2 rs9304318 4.65E-03
18 63,727,755 63,734,371 4 rs12455531 7.02E-03
18 66,882,313 66,917,659 4 rs17179440 4.97E-04
19 15,685,071 15,718,958 4 rs12975815 1.57E-03
19 46,867,000 46,883,137 4 CEACAM7 rs7251886 8.66E-03
19 59,541,275 59,565,647 4 LAIR1 and LILRA4 rs2004431 2.05E-04
20 22,256,842 22,274,938 6 rs1012800 2.54E-04
20 36,099,124 36,172,404 8 C20orf77 rs6022796 4.79E-03
20 46,208,923 46,235,831 17 rs151050 2.08E-04
20 58,755,693 58,772,191 6 rs6071344 3.18E-04
21 18,415,630 18,426,726 5 rs2150385 4.67E-04
21 19,469,347 19,587,446 19 SLC6A6P rs8134931 7.07E-04
21 23,287,429 23,334,156 10 rs244230 8.12E-04
21 24,030,348 24,092,754 15 rs1157277 2.31E-04
21 24,303,999 24,355,766 10 rs8134281 6.61E-04
22 24,752,980 24,778,643 7 MYO18B rs6004901 2.43E-03
22 31,662,712 31,713,419 4 SYN3 rs17779789 2.61E-03
22 40,052,810 40,077,663 4 ZC3H7B rs3817999 3.90E-03
22 42,418,082 42,454,835 4 FLJ23588 rs1894489 2.67E-03
22 47,156,058 47,181,983 5 rs130785 7.21E-03
23 5,289,710 5,324,870 9 rs12011665 1.37E-03
23 5,521,502 5,547,657 4 rs34291001 3.46E-03
23 7,351,237 7,371,322 6 rs17269009 2.63E-03
23 7,559,572 7,571,315 4 rs6639914 2.59E-03
23 14,021,870 14,066,309 8 rs5935694 3.91E-03
23 15,858,474 15,924,353 10 rs705857 1.00E-04
23 26,704,945 26,730,141 4 rs4898189 1.67E-03
23 65,661,456 65,675,958 4 rs6624988 5.23E-03
23 68,704,238 68,751,820 6 EDA rs4844179 2.41E-03
23 83,765,563 83,775,407 4 rs830240 3.81E-03
23 83,802,507 83,866,535 12 rs707677 3.85E-03
23 86,001,607 86,017,818 4 rs1936029 4.13E-03
23 86,669,781 86,714,253 16 KLHL4 rs6617426 1.10E-03
23 111,364,987 111,397,689 5 ZCCHC16 rs17307753 7.49E-03
23 120,290,236 120,347,792 16 rs7054144 1.00E-03
23 144,107,310 144,120,517 6 rs9792699 5.30E-03

Columns list the chromosome and bp coordinates for the beginning and end of the genomic region identified by clustered, nominally positive SNPs from the current study; number of clustered, nominally positive SNPs that lie in clusters within the region in the current sample; the gene(s) (if any) that lie within this chromosomal region; the SNP that displays the nominally smallest P value in the cluster; and the P value displayed by that SNP. Note that several genes are identified by more than one cluster of nominally positive SNPs. Genes identified by clusters of nominally positive SNPs for which ≥ 25% are among the SNPs for which assay variance is largest for Affymetrix 6.0 arrays in other studies are identified in boldfaced italics.

Power for Quit Success Comparisons

We calculated the power of these samples for detection of 5%, 7.5% and 10% differences in allele frequency. We used the mean 0.24 minor allele frequency that we found for nominally positive SNPs in these samples. The power to detect these differences was 0.15, 0.28 and 0.43, respectively.

Overlap with Data from Previous Quit Success Samples

These data for clustered, nominally positive SNPs from the current data set provide significant chromosomal overlap with genes that have been identified by other relevant data sets, largely those derived from validated pooled genotyping approaches (Table 2). These approaches identify the same genes that are identified by nominally positive results in other studies to extents much greater than what we would expect by chance. The overlaps between the clustered, nominally positive SNPs from the current sample and the clustered, nominally positive SNPs from at least two other samples of successful versus unsuccessful quitters and/or nicotine dependence identify 59 genes. Whereas the empirical P values associated with most of these genes do not withstand stringent Bonferroni corrections for multiple testing, several of these gene-wise P values do yield P values <0.0008 and thus survive this correction for multiple testing (21) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Genes that contain clustered, nominally positive SNPs from the current study and clustered, nominally positive SNPs from at least two additional 500,000, 600,000 or 1,000,000 SNP GWA studies of smoking cessation success in pooled DNA samples from subjects of European genetic backgrounds.

Gene Chromo-some bp: Start bp: End Current PIP V H L R B Bi P
KIF1B 1 10193418 10364242 5 16 8 0.0005
DAB1 1 57236167 58488799 9 93 7 2 3 0.0021
DNM3 1 170077261 170648480 7 17 3 1 0.0095
ASTN 1 175096826 175400647 6 12 2 1 0.0082
CTNNA2 2 79593634 80729416 6 57 2 2 7 0.0066
TCF7L1 2 85214245 85391016 5 1 2 0.0122
RAPGEF4 2 173308853 173625861 10 6 1 0.0052
RBMS3 3 29297947 30021624 4 11 2 8 0.0068
FHIT 3 59710076 61212164 11 105 7 2 2 0.0033
EEFSEC 3 129355003 129610179 6 17 2 0.0077
SLC9A9 3 144466754 145049979 4 33 2 5 0.0099
TP73L 3 190831910 191097759 3 4 1 1 0.0145
LEPREL1 3 191157316 191321412 9 11 4 2 0.0010
FGF12 3 193342413 193928066 5 5 3 2 0.0175
RNASEN 5 31436926 31567925 6 1 1 0.0094
PDE4D 5 58302468 58918032 4 15 1 0.0428
SLC22A5 5 131733343 131759205 6 8 1 0.0039
SLIT3 5 168025857 168660554 6 24 5 3 3 1 0.0012
KCNIP1 5 169713459 170096214 5 23 3 0.0088
KIAA1900 6 97479324 97694980 6 6 1 0.0125
GRIK2 6 101953675 102623474 2 16 2 2 1 0.0139
UST 6 149110157 149439818 6 41 4 0.0039
PARK2 6 161689661 163068793 6 91 6 2 8 0.0044
DGKB 7 14153770 14847413 4 38 1 0.0262
MAGI2 7 77484310 78920826 6 51 2 1 0.0314
SEMA3A 7 83428426 83661848 12 2 1 0.0024
CSMD1 8 2782789 4839736 6 191 4 10 10 5 12 0.0015
DLC1 8 12985243 13416766 5 17 2 0.0169
PSD3 8 18432343 18915476 18 23 1 0.0013
TG 8 133948387 134216325 4 11 3 0.0123
ST3GAL1 8 134540312 134653344 5 9 2 1 0.0042
ZNF406 8 135559213 135794463 4 21 3 0.0072
COL22A1 8 139669660 139995418 6 21 1 0.0119
PTPRD 9 8307268 9008735 4 42 2 8 2 0.0026
KIAA1797 9 20648309 20985954 5 5 2 0.0214
PIP5K1B 9 70510436 70813912 4 51 1 0.0030
GABBR2 9 100090187 100511300 4 19 5 0.0101
DIP2C 10 311432 725606 8 7 3 1 0.0043
BICC1 10 59942910 60258851 4 8 2 0.0244
NRAP 10 115338573 115413795 1 11 1 1 0.0057
CASP7 10 115428925 115480654 11 10 1 2 0.0004
SLC1A2 11 35229329 35397372 7 34 3 3 0.0004
SOX5 12 23576498 24606647 10 48 2 2 0.0053
MYBPC1 12 100512878 100603789 8 4 1 0.0047
GPR133 12 130004790 130189786 4 26 1 0.0090
NBEA 13 34414456 35144873 9 5 1 0.0206
LMO7 13 75092571 75332003 5 23 2 0.0076
GPC5 13 90848930 92317491 1 25 2 1 0.1015
GPC6 13 92677096 93853948 17 40 1 4 0.0013
STK24 13 97902414 98027350 4 22 1 0.0075
NPAS3 14 32478200 33340702 16 70 5 1 <0.0001
RGS6 14 71469586 72100407 32 15 1 4 <0.0001
WDR72 15 51594652 51839151 7 14 2 2 0.0021
HMOX2 16 4466447 4500349 4 1 2 0.0113
A2BP1 16 6009133 7702500 6 181 3 14 12 13 <0.0001
CDH13 16 81218079 82387702 7 160 5 8 3 7 2 <0.0001
PRKCA 17 61729388 62237324 9 21 4 1 0.0036
SLC14A2 18 41448764 41517070 10 11 4 0.0002
MYO18B 22 24468120 24757007 5 32 5 3 1 0.0015

Columns list the gene symbol, chromosome and bp coordinates for the beginning and end of the gene, and numbers of nominally positive, clustered SNPs that fall within the gene from the current study. PIP: 1,000,000 SNP GWA from “patch in practice samples” (8); V: 1,000,000 SNP GWA from a trial of the efficacy of denicotinized cigarettes: Vector samples (7), 500,000 SNP GWA of samples of community quitters and continuing smokers; H: Hamer samples (6); L: Lerman; B: Brown; R: Rose from smoking cessation samples 1–3 from Uhl et al. (5). Bi: Data from comparison of 38,000 SNPs identified in comparisons to smokers with and without FTND dependence from Bierut et al. (11). Monte Carlo P values note the number of times in 10,000 simulation trials that results this strong or stronger are obtained by randomly sampling the same numbers of SNPs from the same data sets. Boldfaced entries denote the genes in which at least three samples identify the same region within the gene.

Control for occult stratification was based on examining the overlap between the 2,147 clustered, nominally positive SNPs from the present quit success analyses with the 2.5% of the SNPs for which the racial/ethnic differences in control individuals from prior data sets were largest. We identified 48 SNPs with these properties; 50 would have been expected by chance. Controls for noisy SNPs found that 70 of the clustered, nominally positive SNPs overlapped with the set of SNPs that provided the largest variance in other assessments of these SNPs using Affymetrix 6.0 arrays, while 50 would be expected by chance. We identify the clusters that contain SNPs that provide greater assay variance in Table 1.

Bayesian Network Analysis

Bayesian networks incorporated many of the SNPs that provided the strongest 25, 50, 100, 200, 500 or 1,000 P values for the true quit success data when analyzed by using BayesWare (Figure 1) (http://bayesware.com [22–25]). By contrast, only a few SNPs were included in the corresponding analyses of data from permutated control sets of SNPs in which there were random relationships between SNPs and the set of P values obtained from the bona fide data (Figure 1). Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of the Bayesian network for data from the 1,000 SNPs with the strongest P values. Interestingly, the relationship between the SNPs for which data directly predicts abstinence in this data set (for example, those in the inner circle forming the “Markov Blanket” of the outcome node) and the SNPs located in the outer circle can be explained by the linkage disequilibrium between the SNPs (data not shown). This relationship would be expected if the network was detecting true biological relationships, but not if the network was detecting noise. However, there were relatively few interrelationships between these “inner circle” SNPs (data not shown), suggesting that linkage disequilibrium was not responsible for much of the influence of these SNPs on quit success.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Generation of Bayesian network for prediction of abstinence. SNPs are first sorted based on nominal P value, and SNPs with the 5 to 1,000 lowest P values are used. Networks are generated from real data using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods using the BayesWare factor.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Bayesian network including the 1,000 SNPs with the strongest P values in the current study. The SNPs in the inner circle (Markov Blanket of the outcome node) provide the most direct, strongest relationship to abstinence at week 10 of this trial. Many of the relationships between SNPs in the first ring with those in the second, third and fourth rings can be explained by linkage disequilibrium.

The 5,898 SNPs, for which alleles are identified by these results as directly predicting abstinence, display P values that range from 0.0000028 to 0.01 in the primary data set. A total of 960 of these SNPs also display nominally significant association with quit success in at least one other previously reported quit success data set, whereas 32 of these SNPs display such nominally significant associations in at least two prior samples.

Functional Genomic Analyses

A number of genes identified by clusters of nominally significant SNPs in this work fall into several functional classes identified by gene ontology. Functional enrichment analysis (BioBase) that compares the representation of functional classes with all human genes identified significant overrepresentation, when corrected for false discovery rate (FDR), of genes involved in the following: molecular functions, the membrane/plasma membrane, synapses and synaptic transmission of nerve impulses, cell communication, radial glia-guided migration of Purkinje cells, protein binding, neuron projections, protein kinase C activity, cell–cell signaling and communication, cell migration in hindbrain, negative regulation of response to stimulus, localization of the cell, hindbrain radial glia-guided cell migration, cell motion, axon guidance, binding, cell junctions, hind-brain development, signal transduction, nucleoside monophosphate and cAMP metabolic process, G-protein complexes and glutamate receptor activity.

DISCUSSION

The current results provide independent support, from individually genotyped GWA, for data derived from prior studies of smoking cessation success in clinical trial and community settings that used validated methods for pooled genotyping. The substantial overlaps between the autosomal data obtained with individual genotyping and those obtained previously in pooled DNA samples provide mutual validation for the current and previous data sets. The current results provide additional support for polygenic contributions to individual differences in the ability to quit smoking.

These observations can be discussed in light of the strengths and limitations of the current data set. The data display several strengths: (a) the successful and unsuccessful subjects were recruited at the same time from the same study centers, providing significant assurance that contributions of underlying stratification to the results obtained herein have been minimized; (b) both the careful clinical and biochemical monitoring of these participants support the accuracy of smoking cessation assessments; (c) nominally positive results from this work cluster into small chromosomal regions to extents greater than expected by chance; (d) many more of the positive results from this work than we would expect by chance identify the same chromosomal regions that were identified by other studies of smoking cessation and/or vulnerability to develop nicotine dependence in smokers; (e) in these same subjects, a single genotype score per subject that was based on data from the study by Uhl et al. (5) predicted quit success via interactions with nicotine dose and FTND dependence significantly better than at random (P = 0.015 [14]); (f) the true results from this trial, but not permuted results, form a plausible Bayesian network; and (g) the genes identified by these results provide overrepresentation of plausible groups of biological mechanisms in functional enrichment analyses (BioBase).

There are also limitations of these analyses. First, the sample is of modest size from the perspective of GWA, although it is relatively large from the perspective of a clinical trial. This modest sample size provides modest power. This modest power led us to forego analyses of subgroups, such as comparisons between subjects treated with 21 versus 42 mg nicotine. It reduces our confidence in the genes that are identified in this work but not in prior studies and in the negative data concerning genes that have been reproducibly identified in prior studies but not in the current work. Second, individuals in this trial were recruited so that an equal number of participants with FTND scores ≤6 and >6 were randomized to 42 or 21 mg NRT. We combined individuals treated with both doses in the current analysis to increase power, since overall effects of dose on quit success rates were not significant (although effects can be noted in subsets of subjects). Third, we identify no large effects of any SNP assessed here. Data for individual SNPs are less robust than data for clusters of nominally positive SNPs or sets of these clustered SNPs. The data from individual SNPs from this trial, for example, fail to achieve significance in permutation analyses (data not shown). Fourth, more than one-quarter of the SNPs that form seven of the clusters identified in Table 1 are found among the sets of SNPs for which assay variation is large in prior studies using these same Affymetrix 6.0 reagents. Although no cluster is identified solely on the basis of SNPs with these properties, we label these clusters in Table 1 to provide additional cautions in interpreting these results. Fifth, we have not used SNPs, samples or treatments that are identical to those used in prior smoking cessation GWA studies. Each of these issues has limited our enthusiasm about use of SNP-by-SNP meta-analyses, although these metaanalyses might be appropriate when larger data sets are assessed (2629). Sixth, because some of the chromosomal clusters contain genes with related functions, by selecting all of the genes in a cluster for BioBase analyses, some selection bias may be introduced.

Clustering of SNPs whose allele frequencies display nominally significant differences between successful quitters and those who were not successful provides a major preplanned signal that lies at the core of the analyses used herein. We would anticipate the observed highly significant clustering of SNPs that display nominally positive results in this and several additional independent samples if many of these positive SNPs lay near and were in linkage disequilibrium with functional allelic variants that distinguished subjects who were more able to quit smoking from those who were less able to quit. We would not anticipate this degree of clustering if the results were due to chance. The Monte Carlo P values noted here are thus likely to receive contributions from both the extent of linkage disequilibrium among the clustered, nominally positive SNPs and the extent of linkage disequilibrium between these SNPs and the functional haplotype(s) that lead to associations with quit success. These Monte Carlo P values thus weigh against two null hypotheses: (a) that all of the results are random “noise” (Monte Carlo P values for clustering data from the current study alone) and (b) that the results are caused by stochastic differences in haplo-type frequencies between the successful versus unsuccessful quitters (Monte Carlo P value for clustering data from the current versus prior quit success GWA studies).

The current work has thus identified a set of SNPs that, based on Bayesian network analyses and overlap with prior data sets, are likely to identify a network of SNPs and genes with true biological relationships. Indeed, the genes identified in the current and prior smoking cessation studies are overrepresented in specific GO categories (Table 3). Most of these genes are expressed in the brain, as we might expect for addiction-related traits. Many can be related to neurotransmission processes, as we again might expect for such traits. Although the large number of genes identified in this work precludes detailed discussions of each gene, it is especially interesting to note the substantial representation of “cell adhesion”–related genes among those likely to contain allelic variants that associate with the ability to quit smoking. These genes include DAB1, ASTN, CTNNA2, FHIT, SLIT3, MAGI2, SEMA3A, CSMD1, PTPRD, GPC5, GPC6 and CDH13 (30). It is also interesting that the GO results point to several kinds of biological processes of importance for development of and function of selected brain circuits. We could speculate that variations in such genes could influence brain development, alter basal or preexisting behavioral traits and thus indirectly influence smoking cessation (31).

Table 3.

Gene ontology classes identified by genes from Table 2.

GO identifier Group size Gene symbol(s) GO term No. of Hits
P
Obsb Expb
GO:0021942 2 CTNNA2, DAB1 Radial glia guided migration of Purkinje cell 2 1 0.004625
GO:0021535 4 CTNNA2, DAB1 Cell migration in hindbrain 2 1 0.005527
GO:0043005 194 CDH13, CTNNA2, DNM3, GABBR2, PARK2, SLC1A2 Neuron projection 6 1 0.005752
GO:0007268 304 CTNNA2, GABBR2, GRIK2, KCNIP1, KIF1B, PARK2, SLC1A2 Synaptic transmission 7 1 0.006198
GO:0007399 912 CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, DNM3, FGF12, PARK2, SEMA3A, SLC1A2, SLIT3, SOX5 Nervous system development 11 3 0.006541
GO:0021932 3 CTNNA2, DAB1 Hindbrain radial glia guided cell migration 2 1 0.006923
GO:0007267 609 CTNNA2, FGF12, GABBR2, GRIK2, KCNIP1, KIF1B, PARK2, SLC1A2, TP63 Cell–cell signaling 9 2 0.007025
GO:0030054 490 CTNNA2, DLC1, GABBR2, GRIK2, LMO7, MAGI2, NRAP, PSD3 Cell junction 8 2 0.007113
GO:0007417 351 CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, PARK2, SLC1A2, SLIT3, SOX5 Central nervous system development 7 2 0.007605
GO:0042805 5 LMO7, NRAP Actinin binding 2 1 0.007661
GO:0019226 349 CTNNA2, GABBR2, GRIK2, KCNIP1, KIF1B, PARK2, SLC1A2 Transmission of nerve impulse 7 2 0.008389
GO:0051674 520 ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, PRKCA, SEMA3A, SLIT3 Localization of cell 8 2 0.009009
GO:0043395 8 GPC5, GPC6 Heparan sulfate proteoglycan binding 2 1 0.009135
GO:0006928 520 ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, PRKCA, SEMA3A, SLIT3 Cell motion 8 2 0.009759
GO:0010259 10 SLC1A2, TP63 Multicellular organismal aging 2 1 0.010234
GO:0043394 10 GPC5, GPC6 Proteoglycan binding 2 1 0.010773
GO:0044456 197 DNM3, GABBR2, GRIK2, PSD3, SLC1A2 Synapse part 5 1 0.011012
GO:0045202 294 DNM3, GABBR2, GRIK2, MAGI2, PSD3, SLC1A2 Synapse 6 1 0.011148
GO:0010646 866 CDH13, DLC1, GRIK2, PARK2, PRKCA, PSD3, RAPGEF4, RGS6, TCF7L1, TP63 Regulation of cell communication 10 3 0.011326
GO:0007154 4,037 CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DGKB, DKFZp434B1272, DLC1, FGF12, GABBR2, GRIK2, KCNIP1 Cell communication 25 14 0.011507
GO:0005515 7,814 A2BP1, ASTN1, CASP7, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DGKB, DIP2C, DLC1, DNM36 Protein binding 38 26 0.01181
GO:0043616 12 CDH13, TP63 Keratinocyte proliferation 2 1 0.012998
GO:0001964 12 CTNNA2, PARK2 Startle response 2 1 0.013588
GO:0030902 52 CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1 Hindbrain development 3 1 0.01365
GO:0016477 336 ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, PRKCA Cell migration 6 2 0.01407
GO:0005912 139 CTNNA2, DLC1, LMO7, NRAP Adherens junction 4 1 0.016601
GO:0040011 495 ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, PRKCA, SEMA3A Locomotion 7 2 0.017088
GO:0050927 15 CDH13, PRKCA Positive regulation of positive chemotaxis 2 1 0.017505
GO:0045296 15 CDH13, CTNNA2 Cadherin binding 2 1 0.018178
GO:0048870 370 ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, PRKCA Cell motility 6 2 0.018515
GO:0050926 15 CDH13, PRKCA Regulation of positive chemotaxis 2 1 0.018905
GO:0042995 514 CDH13, CTNNA2, DNM3, GABBR2, PARK2, SLC1A2, SLC22A5 Cell projection 7 2 0.019186
GO:0007626 257 CDH13, NPAS3, PARK2, PRKCA, SEMA3A Locomotory behavior 5 1 0.020432
GO:0003674 15,439 A2BP1, ASTN1, BICC1, CASP7, CDH13, COL22A1, CTNNA2, DAB1, DGKB, DIP2C Cell adhesion 57 51 0.02068
GO:0050918 18 CDH13, PRKCA Positive chemotaxis 2 1 0.020739
GO:0005626 685 HMOX2, MAGI2, PDE4D, PRKCA, PSD3, RAPGEF4, SLC14A2, SLC1A2 Insoluble fraction 8 3 0.020892
GO:0070161 157 CTNNA2, DLC1, LMO7, NRAP Anchoring junction 4 1 0.021548
GO:0051179 3,205 A2BP1, ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, DNM3, GRIK2, KCNIP1, KIF1B Localization 20 11 0.024066
GO:0021575 21 DAB1, DLC1 Hindbrain morphogenesis 2 1 0.025229
GO:0007610 417 CDH13, NPAS3, PARK2, PRKCA, SEMA3A, SLC1A2 Behavior 6 2 0.026079
GO:0016337 284 ASTN1, CDH13, CTNNA2, DAB1, LMO7 Cell–cell adhesion 5 1 0.02663
GO:0043197 23 DNM3, SLC1A2 Dendritic spine 2 1 0.027998
GO:0044459 2,123 CDH13, CTNNA2, DLC1, GABBR2, GPC5, GPC6, GRIK2, LMO7, MAGI2, NRAP Plasma membrane part 15 7 0.028616
GO:0022610 768 ASTN1, CDH13, COL22A1, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, LMO7, MYBPC1 Biological adhesion 8 3 0.028908
GO:0005913 24 LMO7, NRAP Cell–cell adherens junction 2 1 0.029029
GO:0007155 767 ASTN1, CDH13, COL22A1, CTNNA2, DAB1, DLC1, LMO7, MYBPC1 Cell adhesion 8 3 0.029264
GO:0040017 25 CDH13, PRKCA Positive regulation of locomotion 2 1 0.029388
GO:0050920 26 CDH13, PRKCA Regulation of chemotaxis 2 1 0.029785
a

Genes identified by data from the current study and at least two additional 500,000, 600,000 or 1,000,000 SNP GWA studies of smoking cessation success were subjected to BioBase functional enrichment analyses. Columns list the GO identifier, number of genes supporting the GO class, list of the first several genes that support the class, definition of the GO term, number of genes observed, number of genes expected by chance and FDR-corrected P value. The 48 GO terms with the lowest FDR-corrected P values are listed.

b

Obs, observed; Exp, expected by chance.

The current data add appreciably to the increasingly robust sets of studies that document molecular genetic contributions to the ability to quit smoking. The present results add to the support for personalized approaches to smoking cessation treatment that come from recent analyses of single genotype–based scores for each of these subjects (14). In this work, abstinence varied on the basis of individual and/or interactive effects of genotype score, nicotine dose and baseline level of nicotine dependence in predicting the degree to which participants were able to reduce smoking during a two-week precessation treatment with NRT. We need to continue to work to apply an integrated sum of SNPs in the context of appropriate clinical information (http://www.genome.gov/27529204) to match individuals with the best type and/or intensity of therapy to maximize benefits and minimize side effects in smoking cessation. One current stepped-care approach based on these aggregate data might entail the following: (a) initial use of NRT, with assignment of nicotine dose based on dependence level and quit success genotype scores, (b) identification of individuals who do not reduce CO sufficiently during initial NRT and (c) prompt reassignment of such non–CO reducers to alternative therapies, such as bupropion or varenecline.

More precise information about genetic influences on the ability to quit smoking from these and prior data sets will aid us in constructing improved “quit success” genotype scores. In subsequent studies, for example, we can test whether the quit success scores in which data from SNPs are selected and weighted by P values (14) perform better or worse than quit success scores in which data from SNPs are selected and weighted on the basis of participation in Bayesian networks, such as those documented here. It is conceivable that such scores may also help us to assess the genetic determinants of generalized abilities to change other health-related behaviors. For both dependent individuals and individuals with other health problems that can be modified through behavior change, these data might thus add to an increasingly rich basis for improved understanding and for development of personalized treatment strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)– Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Human Services (GRU); a grant to Duke University (JE Rose, principal investigator) from Philip Morris USA (Richmond, VA, USA). The funders had no role in the planning or execution of the study, data analysis or publication of results. We are grateful for help from Joseph E. Herskovic, PhD, Eric C. Westman, MD, Qing-Rong Liu, PhD, and Donna Walther, MS. The underlying clinical trial was registered with clinicaltrials. gov (ID# NCT00734617). This study used BioBase (http://biobase-international.com), installed on the Helix System at the Center for Information Technology (CIT), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (http://helix.nih.gov).

Footnotes

DISCLOSURE

GR Uhl and JE Rose are listed as inventors for a patent application filed by Duke University that specifies sets of genomic markers that distinguish successful quitters from unsuccessful quitters in data from other clinical trials. MF Ramoni has financial interest in BayesWare LLC.

Online address: http://www.molmed.org

REFERENCES

  • 1.Adhikari B, Kahende J, Malarcher A, Pechacek T, Tong V. Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses: United States, 2000–2004. MMVR Weekly. 2008;57:1226–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhu S, Melcer T, Sun J, Rosbrook B, Pierce JP. Smoking cessation with and without assistance: a population-based analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:305–11. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00124-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Broms U, Silventoinen K, Madden PA, Heath AC, Kaprio J. Genetic architecture of smoking behavior: a study of Finnish adult twins. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2006;9:64–72. doi: 10.1375/183242706776403046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lessov CN, et al. Defining nicotine dependence for genetic research: evidence from Australian twins. Psychol Med. 2004;34:865–79. doi: 10.1017/s0033291703001582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Uhl GR, et al. Molecular genetics of successful smoking cessation: convergent genome-wide association study results. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 2008;65:683–693. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.6.683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Drgon T, et al. Genome-wide association for nicotine dependence and smoking cessation success in NIH research volunteers. Mol Med. 2009;15:21–27. doi: 10.2119/molmed.2008.00096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Drgon T, Johnson C, Walther D, Albino AP, Rose JE, Uhl GR. Genome-wide association for smoking cessation success: participants in a trial with adjunctive denicotinized cigarettes. Mol Med. 2009;15:268–74. doi: 10.2119/molmed.2009.00040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Uhl GR, et al. Genome-wide association for smoking cessation success: participants in the Patch in Practice trial of nicotine replacement. Pharmacogenomics. 11:357–67. doi: 10.2217/pgs.09.156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Uhl GR, et al. Genome-wide association for methamphetamine dependence: convergent results from 2 samples. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 2008;65:345–55. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.3.345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Uhl GR, Liu QR, Drgon T, Johnson C, Walther D, Rose JE. Molecular genetics of nicotine dependence and abstinence: whole genome association using 520,000 SNPs. BMC Genet. 2007;8:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-8-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bierut LJ, et al. Novel genes identified in a high-density genome wide association study for nicotine dependence. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16:24–35. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddl441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thorgeirsson TE, et al. A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. Nature. 2008;452:638–42. doi: 10.1038/nature06846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Amos CI, et al. Genome-wide association scan of tag SNPs identifies a susceptibility locus for lung cancer at 15q25.1. Nat Genet. 2008;40:616–22. doi: 10.1038/ng.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rose JE, Behm FM, Drgon T, Johnson C, Uhl GR. Personalized smoking cessation: interactions between nicotine dose, dependence and quit success genotype score. Mol Med. 2010;16:247–53. doi: 10.2119/molmed.2009.00159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Purcell S, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:559–75. doi: 10.1086/519795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Uhl GR, et al. Molecular genetics of addiction and related heritable phenotypes: genome-wide association approaches identify “connectivity constellation” and drug target genes with pleiotropic effects. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1141:318–81. doi: 10.1196/annals.1441.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Aveyard P, et al. Weekly versus basic smoking cessation support in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2007;62:898–903. doi: 10.1136/thx.2006.071837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liu QR, Drgon T, Johnson C, Walther D, Hess J, Uhl GR. Addiction molecular genetics: 639,401 SNP whole genome association identifies many “cell adhesion” genes. Am. J. Med. Genet. B. Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 2006;141B:918–25. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dupont WD, Plummer WD., Jr Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:116–28. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(90)90005-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dupont WD, Plummer WD., Jr Power and sample size calculations for studies involving linear regression. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:589–601. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(98)00037-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gordon A, Glazko G, Qiu X, Yakovlev A. Control of the mean number of false discoveries, Bonferroni and stability of multiple testing. Ann Appl Stat. 2007;1:179–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ramoni RB, Saccone NL, Hatsukami DK, Bierut LJ, Ramoni MF. A testable prognostic model of nicotine dependence. J Neurogenet. 2009;23:283–92. doi: 10.1080/01677060802572911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Himes BE, Dai Y, Kohane IS, Weiss ST, Ramoni MF. Prediction of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asthma patients using electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:371–79. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Himes BE, et al. Predicting response to short-acting bronchodilator medication using Bayesian networks. Pharmacogenomics. 2009;10:1393–1412. doi: 10.2217/pgs.09.93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ramoni RB, Himes BE, Sale MM, Furie KL, Ramoni MF. Predictive genomics of cardioembolic stroke. Stroke. 2009;40:S67–70. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.533273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nakaoka H, Inoue I. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies: methodologies, between-study heterogeneity and winner’s curse. J Hum Genet. 2009;54:615–23. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2009.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tobacco and Genetics Consortium. Genome-wide meta-analyses identify multiple loci associated with smoking behavior. Nat Genet. 2010;42:441–47. doi: 10.1038/ng.571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Thorgeirsson TE, et al. Sequence variants at CHRNB3-CHRNA6 and CYP2A6 affect smoking behavior. Nat Genet. 2010;42:448–53. doi: 10.1038/ng.573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu JZ, et al. Meta-analysis and imputation refines the association of 15q25 with smoking quantity. Nat Genet. 2010;42:436–40. doi: 10.1038/ng.572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li CY, Liu QR, Zhang PW, Li XM, Wei L, Uhl GR. OKCAM: an ontology-based, human-centered knowledgebase for cell adhesion molecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:D251–60. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hiroi N, Scott D. Constitutional mechanisms of vulnerability and resilience to nicotine dependence. Mol. Psychiatry. 2009;14:653–67. doi: 10.1038/mp.2009.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Molecular Medicine are provided here courtesy of The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at North Shore LIJ

RESOURCES