Genetic modifiers of ambulation in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study

Luca Bello, Akanchha Kesari, Heather Gordish-Dressman, Avital Cnaan, Lauren P Morgenroth, Jaya Punetha, Tina Duong, Erik K Henricson, Elena Pegoraro, Craig M McDonald, Eric P Hoffman, Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Investigators, Luca Bello, Akanchha Kesari, Heather Gordish-Dressman, Avital Cnaan, Lauren P Morgenroth, Jaya Punetha, Tina Duong, Erik K Henricson, Elena Pegoraro, Craig M McDonald, Eric P Hoffman, Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Investigators

Abstract

Objective: We studied the effects of LTBP4 and SPP1 polymorphisms on age at loss of ambulation (LoA) in a multiethnic Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) cohort.

Methods: We genotyped SPP1 rs28357094 and LTBP4 haplotype in 283 of 340 participants in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study (CINRG-DNHS). Median ages at LoA were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. We controlled polymorphism analyses for concurrent effects of glucocorticoid corticosteroid (GC) treatment (time-varying Cox regression) and for population stratification (multidimensional scaling of genome-wide markers).

Results: Hispanic and South Asian participants (n = 18, 41) lost ambulation 2.7 and 2 years earlier than Caucasian subjects (p = 0.003, <0.001). The TG/GG genotype at SPP1 rs28357094 was associated to 1.2-year-earlier median LoA (p = 0.048). This difference was greater (1.9 years, p = 0.038) in GC-treated participants, whereas no difference was observed in untreated subjects. Cox regression confirmed a significant effect of SPP1 genotype in GC-treated participants (hazard ratio = 1.61, p = 0.016). LTBP4 genotype showed a direction of association with age at LoA as previously reported, but it was not statistically significant. After controlling for population stratification, we confirmed a strong effect of LTBP4 genotype in Caucasians (2.4 years, p = 0.024). Median age at LoA with the protective LTBP4 genotype in this cohort was 15.0 years, 16.0 for those who were treated with GC.

Interpretation: SPP1 rs28357094 acts as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of GC response, and LTBP4 haplotype modifies age at LoA in the CINRG-DNHS cohort. Adjustment for GC treatment and population stratification appears crucial in assessing genetic modifiers in DMD.

© 2015 The Authors Annals of Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Neurological Association.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of analysis plan and population grouping. Subgroups included in different analyses are shown, starting from the top with the whole Duchenne Natural History Study (DNHS) cohort, and in subsequent steps excluding patients with no available DNA for genotyping; subjects with no available genome-wide markers for multidimensional scaling analysis for population stratification; and subjects leading to population stratification. Thick-border boxes indicate groups selected for specific analyses. CINRG = Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group; GC = glucocorticoid corticosteroid; LoA = loss of ambulation; MDS = multidimensional scaling; SNP = single nucleotide polymorphism.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier plots of age at loss of ambulation grouped by SPP1 rs28357094 genotype. (A) All patients genotyped for SPP1 rs28357094, including all races and ethnicities (n = 279), grouped 2 ways by rs28357094 genotype (black line = TT; gray line = TG/GG). (B) All patients genotyped for SPP1 rs28357094, including all races and ethnicities (n = 279), grouped 4 ways by rs28357094 genotype (black lines = TT; gray lines = TG/GG) and GC treatment (continuous lines = at least 1 year while ambulatory; dashed lines = <1 year or untreated). (C) Caucasian cohort controlled for population stratification and genotyped for SPP1 rs28357094 (n = 116), grouped 2 ways by rs28357094 genotype (black line = TT; gray line = TG/GG). (D) Caucasian cohort controlled for population stratification and genotyped for SPP1 rs28357094 (n = 116), grouped 4 ways by rs28357094 genotype (black lines = TT; gray lines = TG/GG) and GC treatment (continuous lines = at least 1 year while ambulatory; dashed lines = <1 year or untreated).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier plots of age at loss of ambulation grouped by LTBP4 rs10880 genotype. (A) All patients genotyped for LTBP4 rs10880, including all races and ethnicities (n = 274), grouped 2 ways by rs10880 genotype (black line = TT; gray line = CC/CT). (B) All patients genotyped for LTBP4 rs10880, including all races and ethnicities (n = 274), grouped 4 ways by rs10880 genotype (black line = TT; gray line = CC/CT) and GC treatment (continuous lines = at least 1 year while ambulatory; dashed lines = <1 year or untreated). (C) Caucasian cohort controlled for population stratification and genotyped for LTBP4 rs10880 (n = 115), grouped 2 ways by rs10880 genotype (black line = TT; gray line = CC/CT). (D) Caucasian cohort controlled for population stratification and genotyped for LTBP4 rs10880 (n = 115), grouped 4 ways by rs10880 genotype (black line = TT; gray line = CC/CTy) and GC treatment (continuous lines = at least 1 year while ambulatory; dashed lines = <1 year or untreated).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cartesian plot of multidimensional scaling analysis of genome-wide marker population stratification. Values of the 2 highest ranking components are shown (1st on the x-axis and 2nd on the y-axis). Shape and color of the markers indicate self-identified ethnicity. Participants self-identifying as non-Hispanic Caucasian, indicated by x-shaped markers, form a cluster with low values of the first component ((filled circles), Asian (filled squares), Hispanic Caucasian (empty triangles), Hispanic (filled triangles), and Other (empty circles). Twelve participants self-identifying as non-Hispanic Caucasians appear as outliers, whereas 3 participants self-identifying as Hispanic Caucasian or Other cluster together with non-Hispanic Caucasians and are included in subsequent analyses.

References

    1. Hoffman EP, Brown RH, Jr, Kunkel LM. Dystrophin: the protein product of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy locus. Cell. 1987;51:919–928.
    1. Bushby K, Finkel R, Birnkrant DJ. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:77–93.
    1. Bushby K, Finkel R, Birnkrant DJ. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 2: implementation of multidisciplinary care. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:177–189.
    1. Pegoraro E, Hoffman EP, Piva L. SPP1 genotype is a determinant of disease severity in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurology. 2011;76:219–226.
    1. Ceco E, McNally EM. Modifying muscular dystrophy through transforming growth factor-beta. FEBS J. 2013;280:4198–4209.
    1. Giacopelli F, Marciano R, Pistorio A. Polymorphisms in the osteopontin promoter affect its transcriptional activity. Physiol Genomics. 2004;20:87–96.
    1. Barfield WL, Uaesoontrachoon K, Wu CS. Eccentric muscle challenge shows osteopontin polymorphism modulation of muscle damage. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23:4043–4050.
    1. Heydemann A, Ceco E, Lim JE. Latent TGF-beta-binding protein 4 modifies muscular dystrophy in mice. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:3703–3712.
    1. Flanigan KM, Ceco E, Lamar KM. LTBP4 genotype predicts age of ambulatory loss in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol. 2013;73:481–488.
    1. Nelson SF, Griggs RC. Predicting the severity of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: implications for treatment. Neurology. 2011;76:208–209.
    1. Enoch MA, Shen PH, Xu K. Using ancestry-informative markers to define populations and detect population stratification. J Psychopharmacol. 2006;20(4 suppl):19–26.
    1. Tian C, Gregersen PK, Seldin MF. Accounting for ancestry: population substructure and genome-wide association studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17:R143–R150.
    1. Genin E, Feingold J, Clerget-Darpoux F. Identifying modifier genes of monogenic disease: strategies and difficulties. Hum Genet. 2008;124:357–368.
    1. Holtzer C, Meaney FJ, Andrews J. Disparities in the diagnostic process of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy. Genet Med. 2011;13:942–947.
    1. Fox DJ, Kumar A, West NA. Trends with corticosteroid use in males with Duchenne muscular dystrophy born 1982–2001. J Child Neurol. 2015;30:21–26.
    1. Bortolini ER, Zatz M. Duchenne muscular dystrophy: comparison among different racial groups. Am J Med Genet. 1987;28:925–929.
    1. Kenneson A, Kolor K, Yang Q. Trends and racial disparities in muscular dystrophy deaths in the United States, 1983–1998: an analysis of multiple cause mortality data. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140:2289–2297.
    1. McDonald CM, Henricson EK, Abresch RT. The Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study—a longitudinal investigation in the era of glucocorticoid therapy: design of protocol and the methods used. Muscle Nerve. 2013;48:32–54.
    1. Henricson EK, Abresch RT, Cnaan A. The Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study: glucocorticoid treatment preserves clinically meaningful functional milestones and reduces rate of disease progression as measured by manual muscle testing and other commonly used clinical trial outcome measures. Muscle Nerve. 2013;48:55–67.
    1. Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:559–575.
    1. Neale BM, Purcell S. The positives, protocols, and perils of genome-wide association. Am J Med Genet B. 2008;147B:1288–1294.
    1. DeSilva S, Drachman DB, Mellits D, Kuncl RW. Prednisone treatment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Long-term benefit. Arch Neurol. 1987;44:818–822.
    1. Angelini C, Pegoraro E, Turella E. Deflazacort in Duchenne dystrophy: study of long-term effect. Muscle Nerve. 1994;17:386–391.
    1. McAdam LC, Mayo AL, Alman BA, Biggar WD. The Canadian experience with long-term deflazacort treatment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Acta Myol. 2012;31:16–20.
    1. Ricotti V, Ridout DA, Scott E. Long-term benefits and adverse effects of intermittent versus daily glucocorticoids in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013;84:698–705.
    1. Bello L, Piva L, Barp A. Importance of SPP1 genotype as a covariate in clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurology. 2012;79:159–162.
    1. Piva L, Gavassini BF, Bello L. TGFBR2 but not SPP1 genotype modulates osteopontin expression in Duchenne muscular dystrophy muscle. J Pathol. 2012;228:251–259.
    1. Hoffman EP, Gordish-Dressman H, McLane VD. Alterations in osteopontin modify muscle size in females in both humans and mice. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:1060–1068.
    1. Rhen T, Cidlowski JA. Antiinflammatory action of glucocorticoids—new mechanisms for old drugs. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1711–1723.
    1. Fisher I, Abraham D, Bouri K. Prednisolone-induced changes in dystrophic skeletal muscle. FASEB J. 2005;19:834–836.
    1. Heier CR, Damsker JM, Yu Q. VBP15, a novel anti-inflammatory and membrane-stabilizer, improves muscular dystrophy without side effects. EMBO Mol Med. 2013;5:1569–1585.
    1. van den Bergen JC, Hiller M, Bohringer S. Validation of genetic modifiers for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a multicentre study assessing SPP1 and LTBP4 variants. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 et al.;DOI: . [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Zatz M, Pavanello RC, Lazar M. Milder course in Duchenne patients with nonsense mutations and no muscle dystrophin. Neuromuscul Disord. 2014;24:986–989.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi