Search

ObjectiveGenetic risk scores (GRS) have been developed that differentiate individuals with type 1 diabetes from those with other forms of diabetes and are starting to be used for population screening; however, most studies were conducted in European-ancestry populations. This study identifies novel genetic variants associated with type 1 diabetes risk in African-ancestry participants and develops an African-specific GRS.Research design and methodsWe generated single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data with the ImmunoChip on 1,021 African-ancestry participants with type 1 diabetes and 2,928 control participants. HLA class I and class II alleles were imputed using SNP2HLA. Logistic regression models were used to identify genome-wide significant (P < 5.0 × 10-8) SNPs associated with type 1 diabetes in the African-ancestry samples and validate SNPs associated with risk in known European-ancestry loci (P < 2.79 × 10-5).ResultsAfrican-specific (HLA-DQA1*03:01-HLA-DQB1*02:01) and known European-ancestry HLA haplotypes (HLA-DRB1*03:01-HLA-DQA1*05:01-HLA-DQB1*02:01, HLA-DRB1*04:01-HLA-DQA1*03:01-HLA-DQB1*03:02) were significantly associated with type 1 diabetes risk. Among European-ancestry defined non-HLA risk loci, six risk loci were significantly associated with type 1 diabetes in subjects of African ancestry. An African-specific GRS provided strong prediction of type 1 diabetes risk (area under the curve 0.871), performing significantly better than a European-based GRS and two polygenic risk scores in independent discovery and validation cohorts.ConclusionsGenetic risk of type 1 diabetes includes ancestry-specific, disease-associated variants. The GRS developed here provides improved prediction of type 1 diabetes in African-ancestry subjects and a means to identify groups of individuals who would benefit from immune monitoring for early detection of islet autoimmunity.

BackgroundThe association between Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and pregnancy outcomes across ethnicities is uncertain. We evaluated the associations of gestational weight gain (GWG) outside 2009 IOM guidelines, with maternal and infant outcomes across the USA, western Europe and east Asia, with subgroup analyses in Asia. The aim was to explore ethnic differences in maternal prepregnancy body mass index (BMI), GWG and health outcomes across these regions.MethodsSystematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of observational studies were used for the study. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase and all Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews were searched from 1999 to 2017. Studies were stratified by prepregnancy BMI category and total pregnancy GWG. Odds ratio (ORs) 95% confidence intervals (CI) applied recommended GWG within each BMI category as the reference. Primary outcomes were small for gestational age (SGA), preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA). Secondary outcomes were macrosomia, caesarean section and gestational diabetes.ResultsOverall, 5874 studies were identified and 23 were included (n = 1,309,136). Prepregnancy overweight/obesity in the USA, Europe and Asia was measured at 42%, 30% and 10% respectively, with underweight 5%, 3% and 17%. GWG below guidelines in the USA, Europe and Asia was 21%, 18% and 31%, and above was 51%, 51% and 37% respectively. Applying regional BMI categories in Asia showed GWG above guidelines (51%) was similar to that in the USA and Europe. GWG below guidelines was associated with a higher risk of SGA (USA/Europe [OR 1.51; CI 1.39, 1.63]; Asia [1.63; 1.45, 1.82]) and preterm birth (USA/Europe [1.35; 1.17, 1.56]; Asia [1.06; 0.78, 1.44]) than GWG within guidelines. GWG above guidelines was associated with a higher risk of LGA (USA/Europe [1.93; 1.81, 2.06]; Asia [1.68; 1.51 , 1.87]), macrosomia (USA/Europe [1.87; 1.70, 2.06]; Asia [2.18; 1.91, 2.49]) and caesarean (USA/Europe [1.26; 1.21, 1.33]; Asia [1.37; 1.30, 1.45]). Risks remained elevated when regional BMI categories were applied for GWG recommendations. More women in Asia were categorised as having GWG below guidelines using World Health Organization (WHO) (60%) compared to regional BMI categories (16%), yet WHO BMI was not accompanied by increased risks of adverse outcomes.ConclusionsWomen in the USA and western Europe have higher prepregnancy BMI and higher rates of GWG above guidelines than women in east Asia. However, when using regional BMI categories in east Asia, rates of GWG above guidelines are similar across the three continents. GWG outside guidelines is associated with adverse outcomes across all regions. If regional BMI categories are used in east Asia, IOM guidelines are applicable in the USA, western Europe and east Asia.

U.S. predominance in space power is undermined by two capability gaps: the transatlantic gap for interoperability and the authoritarian gap for defense against asymmetric threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]