Skip to main content
. 2012 Mar 19;3:33. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00033

Table 4.

Associationa between haplotypes derived from ATIC variants and ovarian carcinoma with and without stratification by multivitamin supplement use among 2,233 subjects (Phases 1 and 2), Mayo Clinic, and Duke University.

Haplotypeb Multivitamin non-users
Multivitamin users
All subjects
Global haplotype test P value Estimated haplotype frequency OR (95% CI) Global haplotype test P value Estimated haplotype frequency OR (95% CI) Global haplotype test P value Estimated haplotype frequency OR (95% CI)
0.56 0.01 0.70
001101000 0.26 1.04 (0.86–1.26) 0.24 0.76 (0.59–0.97) 0.25 0.93 (0.81–1.07)
010000001 0.26 0.98 (0.81–1.19) 0.25 0.82 (0.65–1.04) 0.26 0.94 (0.82–1.08)
100001011 0.05 1.23 (0.84–1.79) 0.05 0.74 (0.46–1.19) 0.05 1.05 (0.80–1.38)
000101000 0.07 1.16 (0.89–1.51) 0.07 0.96 (0.68–1.35) 0.06 1.01 (0.82–1.23)
100010000 0.10 0.73 (0.55–0.98) 0.10 1.10 (0.78–1.55) 0.10 0.95 (0.78–1.16)
101001011 0.01 0.69 (0.29–1.66) 0.02 1.28 (0.53–3.05) 0.01 0.77 (0.42–1.40)
101010000 0.02 1.13 (0.63–2.03) 0.03 1.50 (0.79–2.87) 0.02 1.17 (0.78–1.75)
000000100 0.03 0.87 (0.56–1.38) 0.03 1.52 (0.90–2.56) 0.03 1.02 (0.73–1.43)
001000100 0.13 1.00 (0.78–1.29) 0.13 1.39 (1.04–1.87) 0.13 1.16 (0.97–1.38)
011000001 0.06 1.07 (0.79–1.45) 0.08 1.42 (1.04–1.95) 0.06 1.12 (0.91–1.39)

aAdjusted for age (<40, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70+ yrs), residence (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, and North Carolina), body mass index, age at menarche, oral contraceptive use, postmenopausal status, postmenopausal hormone use, parity/age at first birth, smoking, and education (see Table 1 for categories). Haplotype associations were estimated using log-additive logistic regression models.

bEstimated using both cases and controls; SNPs that formed ATIC haplotypes were, in positional order, rs3772078, rs2372536, rs1880586, rs1983462, rs16853826, rs7586969, rs16853834, rs1404772, rs7604984, where 0 = common allele and 1 = rare allele. Bold indicates the two significant SNPs with opposing effects from Table 3.