ABSTRACT
Aims/Introduction
Identifying diabetes‐susceptible genetic variants will help to provide personalized therapy for the management of type 2 diabetes. Previous studies have reported a genetic risk score (GRS), computed by the sum of nuclear DNA (nDNA) risk alleles, that may predict the future requirement for insulin therapy. Although mitochondrial dysfunction has a close association with insulin resistance (IR), there are few studies investigating whether genetic variants of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) will affect the clinical characteristics of type 2 diabetes.
Materials and Methods
Mitochondrial haplogroups were determined using mtDNA whole genome next generation sequencing and 13 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in nDNA susceptibility loci of 13 genes in 604 Taiwanese subjects with type 2 diabetes. A GRS of nDNA was computed by summation of the number of risk alleles. The correlation between the mtDNA haplogroup and the clinical characteristics of type 2 diabetes was assessed by logistic regression analysis. The results were compared with the GRS subgroups for the risk of insulin requirement.
Results
Mitochondrial haplogroups modulate the clinical characteristics of type 2 diabetes, in which patients harboring haplogroup D4, compared with those harboring non‐D4 haplotypes, were less prone to require insulin treatment, after adjusting for age, gender, and diabetes duration. However, there was no association between insulin requirement and GRS calculated from nuclear genetic variants.
Conclusions
Mitochondrial haplogroups, but not nuclear genetic variants, have a better association with the insulin requirement. The results highlight the role of mitochondria in the management of common metabolic diseases.
Keywords: Diabetes, Insulin, Mitochondria
Mitochondrial haplogroups, but not nuclear genetic variants, have a better association with the insulin requirement in patients with T2DM.
INTRODUCTION
Type 2 diabetes is a heterogenous disease characterized by dysfunction of insulin secretion and insulin resistance (IR), and both are affected by genetic and/or environmental factors contributing to the pathogenesis of the disease 1 , 2 The relative contributions of these two factors has been debated extensively. Some studies have suggested that beta cell dysfunction has a critical role in the progression of diabetes, whereas others proposed that insulin resistance is the primary contributor that induces beta cell dysfunction 3 , 4 In spite of previous studies of nuclear DNA (nDNA) genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, the genetic and physiological bases remain obscure 5 , 6 Mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance in classical target organs such as liver, fat, and muscle of individuals with type 2 diabetes have been clearly demonstrated 7 , 8 , 9 Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations accumulated along the pathway of human migration out of Africa and around the world. Those mutations that were functionally beneficial in a particular environment were selected regionally, and defined the related mtDNA haplogroups 10 In Chinese populations, our group have demonstrated that the diabetes‐susceptible haplogroup (B4) harbors 10398A and the poly C tract, while the diabetes‐resistant haplogroups (D4, N9) harbor 10398G without the poly C tract 11 By the generation of a trans‐mitochondrial cybrid cell, we verified the influence of haplogroup B4 on chronic inflammation and cellular insulin resistance. On the other hand, cybrid N9 and D4 harboring the diabetes‐protective haplogroups were more insulin sensitive and less prone to inflammation 12
This study explored whether there is a correlation between mtDNA haplogroups and the clinical features of type 2 diabetes in a cohort of Taiwanese patients. In addition, a list of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in nDNA susceptibility loci found to be associated with type 2 diabetes in an Asian population (CDKAL1, CDKN2A, FGF21, FTO, IRS1, PPAR‐ɤ, KCNJ11, HHEX, IGF2BP2, TCF7L2, KCNQ1, C2CD4A/B, SLC30A8, PSMD6) were compared. A genetic risk score (GRS) calculated according to the number of risk alleles was used to assess the association between nuclear SNPs and clinical features in patients with type 2 diabetes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study populations
Between January 2018 and December 2019, all patients with type 2 diabetes and aged 30 years or older, who regularly attended the endocrinology and metabolism outpatient clinics in a tertiary referral center in South Taiwan (Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) were asked to participate in this study. Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed according to the American Diabetes Association criteria 13 and type 1 diabetes patients were excluded from this study. A total of 604 patients were recruited and informed consent was obtained from all study subjects. Each patient received a detailed interview regarding his or her personal disease. Demographic data, anthropometric measurements, laboratory tests results, and the use of antidiabetic drugs were also obtained. The Human Research Ethics Committee of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital approved this study.
Clinical and serum biochemical analyses
Waist circumference was measured at the mid‐point between the lowest rib and the iliac crest. Measurements of body height and weight were taken from study patients to calculate the body mass index (BMI), which was defined as the weight divided by the square of the height (kg/m2). Venous samplings were done for analyzing glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FPG), serum creatinine, total cholesterol, low‐density lipoprotein (LDL)‐cholesterol, high‐density lipoprotein (HDL)‐cholesterol, and triglycerides (TG). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated with the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study Group equation [eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) = 186.3 × (serum creatinine‐1.154) × (age‐0.203) × 0.742 (if female)]. Urine albumin concentrations were determined by immunonephelometry (Dade‐Behring). Insulin resistance was assessed using the homeostasis model assessment estimate (HOMA) of insulin resistance [HOM‐IR = fasting insulin levels (μIU/mL) × fasting glucose levels (mM)/22.5]. 14 Insulin secretion capacity was represented by HOMA‐β, which was calculated as (20 × fasting insulin levels)/(fasting glucose levels − 3.5) 14 Insulin requirement is defined as the use of insulin, either alone or in combination with an oral hypoglycemic agent, at enrolment to the study.
Selection of SNPs and genotyping
A list of single nucleotide polymorphisms found previously to be associated with type 2 diabetes were selected in our study with the following considerations: (1) SNPs found to be associated with type 2 diabetes in an Asian/Han population; or (2) SNPs found to be associated with drug treatment responses. Finally, we genotyped 17 SNPs located in or near 14 candidate genes. The following SNPs were examined: CDKAL1 (rs10946398), CDKN2A (rs10811661), FTO (rs8050136), FGF21 (rs838147), HHEX (rs1111875), IGF2BP2 (rs4402960), IGF2BP2 (rs7651090), IRS1 (rs1801278), IRS1 (rs2943641), KCNJ11 (rs5219), PPAR‐ɤ (rs1801282), SLC30A8 (rs13266634), TCF7L2 (rs12255372), TCF7L2 (rs7901695), KCNQ1 (rs2237892), C2CD4A/B (rs7172432), and PSMD6 (rs831571).
DNA was extracted using the Puregene DNA isolation kit (Gentra Systems, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The SNPs genotyping TaqMan assay (Thermofisher Scientific) of 96‐well format real‐time PCR was used to detect the polymorphisms of the indicated genes above.
Construction of genetic risk score
Two methods were used to create the GRS: an unweighted method (u‐GRS) and a weighted method (w‐GRS). The SNPs in IGF2BP2, rs4402960, and rs7651090, were located in the same linkage disequilibrium block. Thus, only rs7651090 was used to calculate the GRS in the analysis. Also, only the TCF7L2 (rs12255372) was used to calculate GRS because the selected two SNPs (rs7901695 and rs12255372) in TCF7L2 were in the same linkage disequilibrium block. The SNPs in FGF21 (rs838147) had a minor allele frequency of 0.2%, and IRS1 (rs1801278) was monomorphic in the study group, therefore were not included in the GRS calculation.
The unweighted total GRS (uT‐GRS) was calculated by summing the number of risk alleles (0/1/2) of all 13 selected SNPs in each individual. We also created a weighted total GRS (wT‐GRS) that was calculated by summation of weighting each risk allele with the effect size (the natural log of the odds ratios) (Table S1) for risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus reported in Asian populations 15 , 16 These selected 13 genetic variants were further classified into two categories: (1) 10 β‐cell function–related SNPs including CDKAL1 (rs10946398), CDKN2A (rs10811661), HHEX (rs1111875), IGF2BP2 (rs7651090), KCNJ11 (rs5219), TCF7L2 (rs12255372), KCNQ1 (rs2237892), C2CD4A/B (rs7172432), SLC30A8 (rs13266634), and PSMD6 (rs831571) and (2) three insulin resistance/obesity‐related SNPs including FTO (rs8050136), IRS1 (rs2943641), and PPAR‐ɤ (rs1801282). We then calculated the weighted GRS of β‐cell function‐related SNPs (wβ‐GRS) and insulin resistance and obesity‐related SNPs (wR‐GRS), respectively. The results of the analysis did not show a difference between the u‐GRS and w‐GRS so that only the results from the w‐GRS are presented in this study.
Determination of mitochondrial haplogroup using whole mitochondrial sequencing
Genomic DNA was extracted from venous blood by using a Puregene DNA purification kit (Gentra, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The mitochondrial genome was prepared in two runs of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), first by six primer pairs to amplify the mitochondrial genome followed by a 64 overlapping primer pairs by multiplex PCR using ExTaq DNA polymerase (Takara Bio Inc., Otsu, Japan). The barcoded PCR libraries were pooled and then sequenced by Illumina MiSeq 2×300 bp paired‐end runs. The raw reads data were processed with FastQC, FastQ groomer, Trimmomatics to remove primer sequences and then mapped to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS) with Burrows‐Wheeler Aligner (BWA‐MEM). The aligned BAM files were then analyzed using mtDNA‐Server (https://mtdna‐server.uibk.ac.at) 17 The haplogroup calling was classified by the HaploGrep2 18
Statistical analysis
Continuous data that are normally distributed are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and those variables that are non‐normally distributed are presented as the median and interquartile range. The comparisons between patients with haplogroup carrier and non‐carrier were conducted using the unpaired Student’s t‐test for comparing normally distributed continuous variables and the Mann‐Whitney U‐test for variables not normally distributed. Study subjects were divided into three groups according to wT‐GRS (low, medium, and high) and differences in baseline characteristics were determined using ANOVA. Categorical data are expressed as numbers and percentages and the differences between categorical variables were tested by the Chi‐square test. To test if the association between insulin requirement and haplogroup D4 was significant, we further performed multiple testing by using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach with the Benjamini and Hochberg method. Additionally, logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the interaction between the risk of insulin requirement and the mitochondrial haplogroup or w‐GRS groups. P < 0.05 was considered to be significant.
RESULTS
Clinical information of the patients
The characteristics of total and subgroups of the study populations are shown in Table 1. The mean age of the study subjects was 61.3 years and the duration of diabetes was 13.2 years. The mean BMI of the study subjects was 26.8 kg/m2 and the mean level of HbA1c was 7.5%. The proportion of subjects who received insulin therapy was 21.3% in our study. The median of HOMA‐IR and HOMA‐β was 2.34 and 37.4, respectively.
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics of the three groups according to the weighted genetic risk score (w‐GRS) of 13 SNPs
| wT‐GRS | Total | Low | Medium | High | P (ANOVA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M/F | 303/271 | 89/101 | 102/87 | 112/83 | 0.106 |
| Age at enrolment (years) | 61.3 ± 9.8 | 60.9 ± 9.3 | 60.9 ± 10.3 | 62.2 ± 9.8 | 0.345 |
| Duration of diabetes (years) | 13.2 ± 8.0 | 13.4 ± 8.0 | 12.9 ± 8.6 | 13.3 ± 7.5 | 0.820 |
| Age of diagnosis (years) | 48.7 ± 9.9 | 48.1 ± 9.5 | 48.6 ± 10.4 | 49.5 ± 9.8 | 0.371 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.8 ± 4.4 | 26.8 ± 4.1 | 26.7 ± 4.8 | 26.9 ± 4.3 | 0.950 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 91.0 ± 10.7 | 90.8 ± 10.5 | 90.2 ± 10.8 | 91.9 ± 10.7 | 0.297 |
| FPG (mg/dL) | 135.5 ± 36.1 | 137.9 ± 35.2 | 130.7 ± 37.3 | 137.6 ± 35.4 | 0.114 |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.5 ± 1.0 | 7.6 ± 1.1 | 7.4 ± 0.9 | 7.4 ± 1.1 | 0.249 |
| HbA1c (mmol/mol) | 58.6 ± 11.5 | 59.2 ± 11.7 | 57.3 ± 10.2 | 57.8 ± 12.4 | 0.249 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.86 (0.70‐1.15) | 0.85 (0.69‐1.09) | 0.84 (0.68‐1.02) | 0.90 (0.72‐1.20) | 0.097 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 78.7 ± 26.3 | 79.0 ± 25.6 | 81.8 ± 25.2 | 75.7 ± 27.9 | 0.082 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 168.0 ± 31.4 | 171.1 ± 29.6 | 163.9 ± 30.4 | 169.1 ± 33.7 | 0.071 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 47.0 ± 12.8 | 46.0 ± 10.5 | 46.8 ± 14.2 | 48.4 ± 13.5 | 0.176 |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 90.0 ± 24.1 | 92.6 ± 22.3 | 87.6 ± 24.6 | 89.7 ± 25.1 | 0.127 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 118.0 (82.0‐174.0) | 123.0 (84.5‐170.0) | 108.0 (76.0‐163.0) | 115.5 (81.0‐175.0) | 0.215 |
| HOMA‐IR | 2.34 (1.70‐3.10) | 2.44 (1.83‐3.14) | 2.23 (1.55‐3.08) | 2.46 (1.73‐3.07) | 0.519 |
| HOMA‐β | 37.4 (27.2‐60.5) | 34.9 (26.7‐56.7) | 40.5 (28.3‐66.0)* | 37.4 (26.2‐58.4) | 0.031 |
| Insulin requirement | 122 (21.3) | 44 (23.2) | 36 (19.0) | 42 (21.5) | 0.723 |
Data are presented as n (%), mean ± standard deviation or mean (interquartile range).
*P < 0.05 vs. low GRS.
BMI, body mass index; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; wT‐GRS, weighted total genetic risk score.
Association of nuclear SNPs with patients’ clinical features
All the enrolled participants were divided into three approximately equally sized groups according to the levels of wT‐GRS (Table 1). There were no significant differences of sex, age, duration of diabetes, age of diagnosis, BMI, waist circumference, HbA1c, and lipid profiles among the three groups. The levels of HOMA‐β in the medium wT‐GRS group were higher than those in the low wT‐GRS group. The levels of HOMA‐IR, however, were not different among these three groups. Also, the ratio of insulin therapy did not have a significant difference in individuals divided according to wT‐GRS. Logistic regression analysis for risk of insulin requirement associated with w‐GRS, adjusted for sex, age, and duration of diabetes is shown in Table 2. The nuclear genetic variants did not show a significant correlation to insulin requirement in the unadjusted model or adjusting other parameters. We further tried to assess the association between the insulin requirement and wT‐GRS, wβ‐GRS, or wR‐GRS. The results, however, did not reveal an association between the wT‐, w β‐, or wR‐GRS and insulin therapy in unadjusted or adjusted models (Table 2). The comparisons of subgroups of patients, divided by GRS counted in simple methods are described in Table S2. There was no significant difference in all parameters between these three groups.
Table 2.
Adjusted odds ratio for weighted genetic risk scores (w‐GRS) and haplogroups for insulin use
| Unadjusted | Model 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Haplogroup | ||
| Non‐D4 | 1 | 1 |
| D4 | 0.41 (0.18‐0.92)* | 0.41 (0.17‐0.97)* |
| w‐GRS | ||
| wT‐GRS | 1.08 (0.48‐2.46) | 1.13 (0.48‐2.66) |
| wβ‐GRS | 1.32 (0.59‐2.96) | 1.30 (0.61‐3.04) |
| wR‐GRS | 0.61 (0.10‐3.72) | 0.80 (0.12‐5.47) |
| wT‐GRS | ||
| Low | 1 | 1 |
| Medium | 0.78 (0.48‐1.28) | 0.78 (0.46‐1.33) |
| High | 0.91 (056‐1.47) | 0.96 (0.58‐1.60) |
Values represent odd ratios and confidence intervals.
Model 1 adjusted for sex, age and duration of diabetes.
*P < 0.05.
wT‐GRS, weighted total genetic risk score; wβ‐GRS, weighted β‐cell function‐related genetic risk score; wR‐GRS, weighted insulin resistance and obesity‐related genetic risk score.
Association of mitochondrial haplogroup with patients’ clinical features
We then divided all the patients into subgroups with mtDNA haplogroups B, D, F, M as well as the group called “others”, which included minor mtDNA haplogroups such as A, C, E, G, H, N, R, Y, or Z. Table 3 summarizes the clinical characteristics of these five groups. Patients with haplogroup B had the youngest age of diagnosis (45.9 ± 1l.0 years) in these five groups. The other characteristics and clinical parameters of the study populations did not differ statistically between the different haplogroups analyzed. The patients were then divided into two groups and compared, according to each haplogroup carrier (such as B, D, F, M) and non‐carrier (non‐B, non‐D, non‐F, non‐M). The age of diagnosis was younger in patients with mtDNA haplogroup B compared with non‐B haplogroups (Table S3). The glycemic control was better in patients with mtDNA haplogroup D compared with non‐D (7.3 ± 0.9 vs. 7.5 ± 1.0, P = 0.046) (Table S4). No significant differences were noted between the subjects haplogroup F vs non‐F, and haplogroup M vs non‐M (Tables S5, S6).
Table 3.
Clinical characteristics of the five groups according to the mitochondrial haplogroups in patients with type 2 diabetes
| Haplogroup | B | D | F | M | Others† | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M/F | 46/46 | 43/53 | 55/41 | 72/47 | 66/61 | 0.152 |
| Age at enrolment (years) | 59.3 ± 10.4 | 62.0 ± 10.8 | 62.7 ± 9.7 | 62.6 ± 8.8 | 60.6 ± 9.7 | 0.063 |
| Duration of diabetes (years) | 14.1 ± 8.9 | 13.2 ± 8.4 | 14.0 ± 9.0 | 13.5 ± 6.9 | 12.1 ± 7.5 | 0.391 |
| Age of diagnosis (years) | 45.9 ± 1l.0 | 49.3 ± 9.6 | 49.4 ± 9.8 | 49.7 ± 9.3* | 48.9 ± 9.5 | 0.045 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.1 ± 5.2 | 27.4 ± 4.7 | 26.6 ± 3.9 | 26.5 ± 3.8 | 26.5 ± 4.0 | 0.394 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 91.1 ± 11.1 | 91.3 ± 11.9 | 90.8 ± 10.2 | 91.5 ± 10.1 | 90.0 ± 10.3 | 0.833 |
| FPG (mg/dL) | 143.7 ± 44.0 | 133.2 ± 32.2 | 134.3 ± 36.7 | 135.3 ± 36.8 | 135.2 ± 32.8 | 0.282 |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.6 ± 1.0 | 7.3 ± 0.9 | 7.4 ± 1.0 | 7.6 ± 1.0 | 7.5 ± 1.2 | 0.302 |
| HbA1c (mmol/mol) | 59.1 ± 11.2 | 56.2 ± 10.0 | 57.6 ± 10.7 | 59.1 ± 10.9 | 58.6 ± 12.7 | 0.302 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.81 (0.68‐1.00) | 0.84 (0.69‐1.16) | 0.84 (0.68‐1.06) | 0.90 (0.72‐1.13) | 0.91 (0.70‐1.13) | 0.880 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 82.9 ± 26.5 | 78.7 ± 26.1 | 80.9 ± 26.8 | 79.3 ± 24.4 | 75.8 ± 25.6 | 0.388 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 170.5 ± 27.9 | 163.1 ± 30.6 | 167.6 ± 31.9 | 164.6 ± 31.3 | 172.9 ± 35.0 | 0.119 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 46.4 ± 11.5 | 46.1 ± 11.7 | 47.5 ± 13.3 | 46.1 ± 10.8 | 49.1 ± 16.6 | 0.239 |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 93.5 ± 22.2 | 85.9 ± 23.2 | 88.6 ± 23.9 | 87.9 ± 24.4 | 91.4 ± 26.3 | 0.215 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 111.0 (83.0‐173.0) | 120.0 (81.0‐187.0) | 113.5 (74.3‐156.0) | 118.0 (84.0‐169.5) | 117.5 (79.0‐178.8) | 0.762 |
| HOMA‐IR | 2.45 (1.92‐3.30) | 2.17 (1.58‐2.89) | 2.40 (1.75‐3.14) | 2.47 (1.71‐3.05) | 2.29 (1.69‐3.15) | 0.363 |
| HOMA‐β | 34.1 (24.1‐60.5) | 39.5 (26.9‐64.4) | 37.4 (28.2‐61.8) | 37.6 (29.6‐61.4) | 37.2 (27.6‐58.4) | 0.572 |
| Insulin requirement (%) | 21 (22.8) | 15 (15.8) | 25 (26.0) | 33 (27.7) | 24 (18.9) | 0.200 |
Data are presented as n (%), mean ± standard deviation or mean (interquartile range).
BMI, body mass index; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
* P < 0.05 vs. haplogroup B.
†Including minor mtDNA haplogroups like A, C, E, G, H, N, R, Y, or Z.
Our previous study with a Chinese population demonstrated that patients with haplogroup B4 were insulin resistant and more prone to chronic inflammation, while patients with cybrid D4 and N9 were more insulin sensitive and less prone to inflammation 12 So, we compared patients with haplogroup B4 and those with non‐B4 haplotypes (Table 4). The age of diagnosis was younger in subjects with haplogroup B4. In addition, the subjects with haplogroup B4 had higher levels of HOMA‐IR and FPG compared with non‐B4 carriers, respectively. We also compared patients with haplogroup D4 and those with non‐D4 haplotypes (Table 4). The haplogroup D4 group had a lower HbA1c level than the non‐D4 group (7.2 ± 0.9 vs. 7.5 ± 1.0, P = 0.021). Furthermore, the proportions of patients requiring insulin therapy was lower in the D4 group than in the non‐D4 group (11.3 vs. 23.8%, P = 0.033). To test if the association between D4 and insulin requirement was significant, we further performed multiple testing by using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach with the Benjamini and Hochberg method. We divided the study populations into insulin users and non‐insulin users (Table S7). The significant parameters between these two groups are the duration of diabetes, age of diagnosis, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, creatinine, eGFR, and patients harboring haplogroup D. Then after putting the probabilities of duration of diabetes, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, eGFR, and patients harboring haplogroup D for analysis, the corrected probabilities of the association between D4 and insulin requirement was 0.036. Thus, we thought the association between D4 and insulin requirement was significant, although the significance was very modest. Finally, logistic regression analysis showed that carriers with haplogroup D4 had a lower risk of receiving insulin therapy than those with non‐D4 haplogroup after adjustment of sex, age, and duration of diabetes (OR 0.41, P < 0.05) (Table 2).
Table 4.
Clinical characteristics of haplogroup B4 vs. non‐B4 and haplogroup D4 vs. non‐D4 in patients with type 2 diabetes
| Haplogroup | B4 | Non‐B4 | P | D4 | Non‐D4 | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M/F | 30/32 | 252/215 | 0.420 | 26/36 | 256/211 | 0.059 |
| Age at enrolment (years) | 59.3 ± 9.9 | 61.7 ± 9.8 | 0.081 | 61.8 ± 10.4 | 61.3 ± 9.8 | 0.733 |
| Duration of diabetes (years) | 14.1 ± 9.3 | 13.2 ± 7.9 | 0.432 | 12.6 ± 8.3 | 13.4 ± 8.1 | 0.454 |
| Age of diagnosis (years) | 45.9 ± 11.3 | 49.1 ± 9.6 | 0.037 | 49.9 ± 8.9 | 48.6 ± 10.0 | 0.328 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.4 ± 5.0 | 26.8 ± 4.2 | 0.444 | 26.7 ± 4.4 | 26.8 ± 4.3 | 0.914 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 90.3 ± 10.4 | 91.0 ± 10.7 | 0.630 | 89.4 ± 12.1 | 91.1 ± 10.4 | 0.238 |
| FPG (mg/dL) | 147.2 ± 45.3 | 134.5 ± 35.8 | 0.044 | 129.1 ± 30.2 | 136.9 ± 37.1 | 0.138 |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.7 ± 1.1 | 7.4 ± 1.0 | 0.113 | 7.2 ± 0.9 | 7.5 ± 1.0 | 0.021 |
| HbA1c (mmol/mol) | 60.3 ± 12.1 | 57.9 ± 11.1 | 0.113 | 55.1 ± 9.9 | 58.6 ± 11.3 | 0.021 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.82 (0.68‐1.00) | 0.86 (0.70‐1.13) | 0.149 | 0.81 (0.55‐1.09) | 0.86 (0.70‐1.10) | 0.432 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 83.7 ± 26.7 | 78.8 ± 25.7 | 0.157 | 80.7 ± 26.9 | 79.2 ± 25.7 | 0.658 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 179.8 ± 26.3 | 167.4 ± 32.4 | 0.441 | 164.8 ± 31.2 | 168.2 ± 31.9 | 0.423 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 46.8 ± 12.1 | 47.1 ± 13.1 | 0.857 | 46.5 ± 10.7 | 47.1 ± 13.3 | 0.714 |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 93.0 ± 21.6 | 89.0 ± 24.6 | 0.224 | 88.0 ± 23.2 | 89.7 ± 24.4 | 0.606 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 113.0 (82.5‐175.0) | 116.0 (80.3‐171.0) | 0.828 | 110.0 (69.8‐186.3) | 116.0 (81.0‐169.0) | 0.688 |
| HOMA‐IR | 2.50 (2.06‐3.35) | 2.35 (1.70‐3.07) | 0.021 | 2.39 (1.52‐2.98) | 2.43 (1.75‐3.14) | 0.280 |
| HOMA‐β | 34.6 (24.3‐61.8) | 37.7 (27.7‐60.5) | 0.485 | 40.9 (28.4‐66.7) | 37.0 (27.2‐60.3) | 0.438 |
| wT‐GRS | 1.37 ± 0.27 | 1.34 ± 0.26 | 0.385 | 1.36 ± 0.25 | 1.34 ± 0.27 | 0.568 |
| Insulin requirement | 16 (25.8) | 102 (21.8) | 0.516 | 7 (11.3) | 111 (23.8) | 0.033 |
Data are presented as n (%), mean ± standard deviation or mean (interquartile range).
BMI, body mass index; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; wT‐GRS, weighted total genetic risk score.
DISCUSSION
In the present study, we first demonstrated that mitochondrial haplogroups modulate the clinical feature of type 2 diabetes, in which patients harboring haplogroup D4, compared with those harboring non‐D4 haplotypes, had a better glycemic control and were less prone to require insulin treatment during the disease course, after adjusting for age, sex, and diabetes duration. On the contrary, patients with haplogroup B4, compared with those with non‐B4 haplotypes had a younger age of diagnosis, higher levels of HOMA‐IR, and FPG. Our study revealed that the mitochondria play an important role in the management of common metabolic diseases. However, there was no correlation between GRS derived from nuclear genetic variants investigated in our study and the clinical features of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes has a genetic predisposition 19 Identifying the diabetes‐susceptible genetic variants in humans has been challenging. Since the first landmark genome‐wide association study (GWAS) on type 2 diabetes was conducted in 2007 20 the progress of genetic association studies have identified at least 75 independent genetic loci for type 2 diabetes in nDNA 6 These findings underline the contribution of multiple modest effect variants, explaining only 20% of the type 2 diabetes heritability 21 , 22 and the causality of identified common variants in type 2 diabetes is largely unknown. Iwata et al. reported that the generation of GRS calculated by summing the number of 14 nDNA risk alleles related to the pathogenesis of diabetes may predict the future insulin requirements in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes 23 In addition, Jiang et al. also have reported that the glycemic progression can be predicted by a polygenic risk score including 123 known nDNA risk alleles in 7,091 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes 24 However, our findings in Chinese patients with 13 susceptibility nDNA alleles are not consistent with them. Moreover, Zhou et al. reported that high GRS derived from 61 risk alleles for diabetes was associated with a younger age of initiating insulin therapy but was associated with glycemic progression in a study including 5,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in Scotland 25
Mitochondria, as the cellular power plant, can function as signaling platforms to regulate cellular growth and death 26 Mitochondrial genes preferentially affect organs with a high energy demand, such as endocrine systems, muscle, brain and heart. In addition to the bioenergetic and biosynthetic function, mitochondria are increasingly recognized as being a central hub triggering innate immunity that highly influences the pathogenesis of age‐related “inflammaging” 27 , 28
The analysis of mitochondrial haplogroups can be used to track global migrations of human populations, and there is substantial evidence that they are drivers to produce both the susceptibility to disease and the adaptation of evolution 10 In a meta‐analysis, there was a significant correlation of haplogroup J subjects with longevity, haplogroup H with the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and haplogroup cluster HV with developing Parkinson’s disease in Caucasian populations. 29 Chinese subjects harboring the mitochondrial haplogroup B5 have been found to be resistant to Parkinson’s disease 30 and haplogroup B4 was diabetes‐susceptible, while haplogroup D4 was diabetes‐resistant 11 In addition, individuals who harbor haplogroup N9a were significantly correlated with reduced susceptibility to type 2 diabetes in Japanese and Korean populations 31 More recently, mtDNA haplogroups have been suggested to contribute to the development and modulation of the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis 32
The underlying molecular mechanisms for the protective role of haplogroup D4 in type 2 diabetes in our study may be related to the findings of our in vitro trans‐mitochondrial cybrid cell studies 12 , 33 , 34 , 35 The use of cytoplasmic hybrid (cybrid) model offers the advantage to study the genetic effects of mitochondria because the cells have the same background of nuclear genome. Cybrid D4 in vitro showed significantly lower oxidative stress than cybrid B4 in baseline conditions and after treatment with insulin 12 Further, cybrid D4 revealed a more elongated mitochondrial network, enhanced mitochondrial biogenesis and bioenergetics, and a high expression of fusion‐related mitochondrial dynamic molecules. Under the circumstance of insulin stimulation, the response of increasing network formation and the production of ATP were clearly observed in cybrid D4 34 Mitochondrial dynamics controls their quality and has been related to mtDNA stability, respiratory capacity, and cell response to stress 36 , 37 In fact, mitochondrial dynamics has been proposed as a bridge between the insulin resistance and a defect in mitochondrial function 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 We later discovered the causal role of mitochondrial dynamics in regulating IR and pro‐inflammation in diabetes‐susceptible cybrids. A bidirectional interaction between mitochondrial dynamics and mitochondrial ROS plays an important role 33 , 35
Our study has some limitations. First, the phenotype of nDNA variants can be modulated by the mtDNA haplogroups 41 , 42 which was not analyzed in our study. Second, mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation is exquisitely sensitive to environmental toxins. Environmental factors, which may modulate gene expression via epigenetic mechanisms, also have a crucial role in the development of type 2 diabetes. The genetic and environmental interaction was not investigated. Third, the association between D4 and insulin requirement was confirmed only after adjustment for sex, age, and the duration of diabetes without multiple testing. We consider the most important factor for insulin requirement is the duration of disease, and these three factors do not change during the study. Other variables, such as BMI and HbA1c, are more changeable during the disease course. Weight gain and HbA1c reduction associated with insulin therapy are significantly larger than genetic effects, which will lead to a limitation to disclose the genetic effect through statistical manipulation. Actually if we add BMI or HbA1c into the analysis, the association will disappear.
In conclusion, we have shown that mitochondrial haplogroups, but not GRS constructed by nuclear genetic variants, have a better association with the requirement for insulin among Taiwanese subjects with type 2 diabetes. Haplogroup screening in patients with type 2 diabetes might be suggested as a way of choosing the most adequate antidiabetic treatment in clinical practice. Future studies with a larger sample size would help to confirm our findings.
DISCLOSURE
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. This study was approved by Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board. The approval numbers are 201601206B0C101 granted on October 23, 2017; 201601206B0C102 granted on October 05, 2018; and 201601206B0C103 granted on November 4, 2019.
Supporting information
Table S1 | Information of selected genotyped genetic variants in the present study
Table S2 | Clinical characteristics of the three groups according to the total genetic risk score (T‐GRS) of 13 SNPs in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S3 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup B and non‐B in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S4 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup D and non‐D in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S5 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup F and non‐F in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S6 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup M and non‐M in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S7 | Clinical characteristics of insulin user vs. non‐insulin user in patients with type 2 diabetes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding: This work was supported by the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital under grant [CORPG8F1001, CORPG8F1002 and CORPG8F1003]. We thank Hsin‐Yi Chien, Chih‐Yun Lin and the Biostatistics Center, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.
J Diabetes Investig 2022; 13: 201–208
REFERENCES
- 1. O'Rahilly S, Barroso I, Wareham NJ. Genetic factors in type 2 diabetes: the end of the beginning? Science 2005; 307: 370–373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ahlqvist E, Storm P, Käräjämäki A, et al. Novel subgroups of adult‐onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data‐driven cluster analysis of six variables. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018; 6: 361–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kahn SE. Clinical review 135: the importance of beta‐cell failure in the development and progression of type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001; 86: 4047–4058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. DeFronzo RA, Ferrannini E. Insulin resistance. A multifaceted syndrome responsible for NIDDM, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Care 1991; 14: 173–194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Cirillo E, Kutmon M, Gonzalez Hernandez M, et al. From SNPs to pathways: biological interpretation of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) genome wide association study (GWAS) results. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0193515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kwak SH, Park KS. Recent progress in genetic and epigenetic research on type 2 diabetes. Exp Mol Med 2016; 48: e220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Szendroedi J, Phielix E, Roden M. The role of mitochondria in insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2011; 8: 92–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Bodis K, Roden M. Energy metabolism of white adipose tissue and insulin resistance in humans. Eur J Clin Investig 2018; 48: e13017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Petersen MC, Shulman GI. Mechanisms of insulin action and insulin resistance. Physiol Rev 2018; 98: 2133–2223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Wallace DC. Mitochondrial DNA variation in human radiation and disease. Cell 2015; 163: 33–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Liou C‐W, Chen J‐B, Tiao M‐M, et al. Mitochondrial DNA coding and control region variants as genetic risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2012; 61: 2642–2651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Weng S‐W, Kuo H‐M, Chuang J‐H, et al. Study of insulin resistance in cybrid cells harboring diabetes‐susceptible and diabetes‐protective mitochondrial haplogroups. Mitochondrion 2013; 13: 888–897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Expert Committee on the D, Classification of Diabetes M . Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003; 26(Suppl 1): S5–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, et al. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta‐cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 1985; 28: 412–419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Chen Z, Pereira MA, Seielstad M, et al. Joint effects of known type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci in genome‐wide association study of Singapore Chinese: the Singapore Chinese health study. PLoS One 2014; 9: e87762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Hu C, Zhang R, Wang C, et al. PPARG, KCNJ11, CDKAL1, CDKN2A‐CDKN2B, IDE‐KIF11‐HHEX, IGF2BP2 and SLC30A8 are associated with type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population. PLoS One 2009; 4: e7643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Weissensteiner H, Forer L, Fuchsberger C, et al. mtDNA‐Server: next‐generation sequencing data analysis of human mitochondrial DNA in the cloud. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44: W64–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Weissensteiner H, Pacher D, Kloss‐Brandstätter A, et al. HaploGrep 2: mitochondrial haplogroup classification in the era of high‐throughput sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44: W58–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Meigs JB, Cupples LA, Wilson PW. Parental transmission of type 2 diabetes: the Framingham Offspring Study. Diabetes 2000; 49: 2201–2207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Sladek R, Rocheleau G, Rung J, et al. A genome‐wide association study identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Nature 2007; 445: 881–885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. McCarthy MI. Genomics, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2339–2350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Mahajan A, Taliun D, Thurner M, et al. Fine‐mapping type 2 diabetes loci to single‐variant resolution using high‐density imputation and islet‐specific epigenome maps. Nat Genet 2018; 50: 1505–1513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Iwata M, Maeda S, Kamura Y, et al. Genetic risk score constructed using 14 susceptibility alleles for type 2 diabetes is associated with the early onset of diabetes and may predict the future requirement of insulin injections among Japanese individuals. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 1763–1770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jiang G, Luk AO, Tam CHT, et al. Obesity, clinical, and genetic predictors for glycemic progression in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a cohort study using the Hong Kong Diabetes Register and Hong Kong Diabetes Biobank. PLoS Med 2020; 17: e1003209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Zhou K, Donnelly LA, Morris AD, et al. Clinical and genetic determinants of progression of type 2 diabetes: a DIRECT study. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 718–724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Nunnari J, Suomalainen A. Mitochondria: in sickness and in health. Cell 2012; 148: 1145–1159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Weinberg SE, Sena LA, Chandel NS. Mitochondria in the regulation of innate and adaptive immunity. Immunity 2015; 42: 406–417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Franceschi C, Garagnani P, Parini P, et al. Inflammaging: a new immune‐metabolic viewpoint for age‐related diseases. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2018; 14: 576–590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Marom S, Friger M, Mishmar D. MtDNA meta‐analysis reveals both phenotype specificity and allele heterogeneity: a model for differential association. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 43449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Liou CW, Chuang JH, Chen JB, et al. Mitochondrial DNA variants as genetic risk factors for Parkinson disease. Eur J Neurol 2016; 23: 1289–1300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Fuku N, Park KS, Yamada Y, et al. Mitochondrial haplogroup N9a confers resistance against type 2 diabetes in Asians. Am J Hum Genet 2007; 80: 407–415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Koo BS, Song Y, Lee S, et al. Association of Asian mitochondrial DNA haplogroup B with new development of knee osteoarthritis in Koreans. Int J Rheum Dis 2019; 22: 411–416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Lin H‐Y, Weng S‐W, Chang Y‐H, et al. The causal role of mitochondrial dynamics in regulating insulin resistance in diabetes: link through mitochondrial reactive oxygen species. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2018; 2018: 7514383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Kuo H‐M, Weng S‐W, Chang AYW, et al. Altered mitochondrial dynamics and response to insulin in cybrid cells harboring a diabetes‐susceptible mitochondrial DNA haplogroup. Free Radic Biol Med 2016; 96: 116–129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Chang Y‐H, Lin H‐Y, Shen F‐C, et al. The causal role of mitochondrial dynamics in regulating innate immunity in diabetes. Front Endocrinol 2020; 11: 445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Benard G, Karbowski M. Mitochondrial fusion and division: regulation and role in cell viability. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2009; 20: 365–374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Chan DC. Fusion and fission: interlinked processes critical for mitochondrial health. Annu Rev Genet 2012; 46: 265–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Jheng H‐F, Tsai P‐J, Guo S‐M, et al. Mitochondrial fission contributes to mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance in skeletal muscle. Mol Cell Biol 2012; 32: 309–319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Zorzano A, Liesa M, Palacin M. Mitochondrial dynamics as a bridge between mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance. Arch Physiol Biochem 2009; 115: 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Stiles L, Shirihai OS. Mitochondrial dynamics and morphology in beta‐cells. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 26: 725–738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. McManus MJ, Picard M, Chen H‐W, et al. Mitochondrial DNA variation dictates expressivity and progression of nuclear DNA mutations causing cardiomyopathy. Cell Metab 2019; 29: e75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Kenney MC, Chwa M, Atilano SR, et al. Inherited mitochondrial DNA variants can affect complement, inflammation and apoptosis pathways: insights into mitochondrial‐nuclear interactions. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23: 3537–3551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Table S1 | Information of selected genotyped genetic variants in the present study
Table S2 | Clinical characteristics of the three groups according to the total genetic risk score (T‐GRS) of 13 SNPs in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S3 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup B and non‐B in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S4 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup D and non‐D in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S5 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup F and non‐F in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S6 | Clinical characteristics of haplogroup M and non‐M in patients with type 2 diabetes
Table S7 | Clinical characteristics of insulin user vs. non‐insulin user in patients with type 2 diabetes