Statistical modeling of interlocus interactions in a complex disease: rejection of the multiplicative model of epistasis in type 1 diabetes.

In general, common diseases do not follow a Mendelian inheritance pattern. To identify disease mechanisms and etiology, their genetic dissection may be assisted by evaluation of linkage in mouse models of human disease. Statistical modeling of multiple-locus linkage data from the nonobese diabetic (NOD) mouse model of type 1 diabetes has previously provided evidence for epistasis between alleles of several Idd (insulin-dependent diabetes) loci. The construction of NOD congenic strains containing selected segments of the diabetes-resistant strain genome allows analysis of the joint effects of alleles of different loci in isolation, without the complication of other segregating Idd loci. In this article, we analyze data from congenic strains carrying two chromosome intervals (a double congenic strain) for two pairs of loci: Idd3 and Idd10 and Idd3 and Idd5. The joint action of both pairs is consistent with models of additivity on either the log odds of the penetrance, or the liability scale, rather than with the previously proposed multiplicative model of epistasis. For Idd3 and Idd5 we would also not reject a model of additivity on the penetrance scale, which might indicate a disease model mediated by more than one pathway leading to beta-cell destruction and development of diabetes. However, there has been confusion between different definitions of interaction or epistasis as used in the biological, statistical, epidemiological, and quantitative and human genetics fields. The degree to which statistical analyses can elucidate underlying biologic mechanisms may be limited and may require prior knowledge of the underlying etiology.

[1]  N. Schork,et al.  Who's afraid of epistasis? , 1996, Nature Genetics.

[2]  S Greenland,et al.  Concepts of interaction. , 1980, American journal of epidemiology.

[3]  N. Risch,et al.  Statistical evaluation of multiple-locus linkage data in experimental species and its relevance to human studies: application to nonobese diabetic (NOD) mouse and human insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). , 1993, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  M. Garrett,et al.  Construction of a double congenic strain to prove an epistatic interaction on blood pressure between rat chromosomes 2 and 10. , 1998, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[5]  Nancy J. Cox,et al.  Loci on chromosomes 2 (NIDDM1) and 15 interact to increase susceptibility to diabetes in Mexican Americans , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[6]  S. Wright,et al.  An Analysis of Variability in Number of Digits in an Inbred Strain of Guinea Pigs. , 1934, Genetics.

[7]  B. Croker,et al.  Genetic dissection of lupus pathogenesis: a recipe for nephrophilic autoantibodies. , 1999, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[8]  Z B Zeng,et al.  Genetic architecture of a morphological shape difference between two Drosophila species. , 2000, Genetics.

[9]  Charles Darwin,et al.  The genetical theory of natural selection , 1930 .

[10]  W. Thompson,et al.  Effect modification and the limits of biological inference from epidemiologic data. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  R. Elston On Additivity in the Analysis of Variance , 1961 .

[12]  J. Weber,et al.  Identification of novel susceptibility loci for inflammatory bowel disease on chromosomes 1p, 3q, and 4q: evidence for epistasis between 1p and IBD1. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  G. Mendel,et al.  Mendel's Principles of Heredity , 1910, Nature.

[14]  D. Thomas,et al.  Biological models and statistical interactions: an example from multistage carcinogenesis. , 1981, International journal of epidemiology.

[15]  A. Paterson,et al.  Two genetic loci regulate T cell-dependent islet inflammation and drive autoimmune diabetes pathogenesis. , 2000, American journal of human genetics.

[16]  N. Schork,et al.  Two-trait-locus linkage analysis: a powerful strategy for mapping complex genetic traits. , 1993, American journal of human genetics.

[17]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  A note on the background to, and refereeing of, R. A. Fisher’s 1918 paper ‘On the correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance’ , 1976, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London.

[18]  J. Todd,et al.  Mapping of the IDDM Locus Idd3 to a 0.35-cM Interval Containing the Interleukin-2 Gene , 1997, Diabetes.

[19]  Víctor M. Guerrero,et al.  Use of the Box-Cox transformation with binary response models , 1982 .

[20]  Z. Zeng,et al.  An analysis of polygenes affecting wing shape on chromosome 3 in Drosophila melanogaster. , 1999, Genetics.

[21]  J. Ott,et al.  Effects of stratification in the analysis of affected-sib-pair data: benefits and costs. , 2000, American journal of human genetics.

[22]  R. A. Fisher,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1931 .

[23]  J. Todd,et al.  Polygenic control of autoimmune diabetes in nonobese diabetic mice , 1993, Nature Genetics.

[24]  J. Rice,et al.  Two‐Locus models of disease , 1992, Genetic epidemiology.

[25]  Ritsert C. Jansen,et al.  Complex interactions of new quantitative trait loci, Sluc1, Sluc2, Sluc3, and Sluc4, that influence the susceptibility to lung cancer in the mouse , 1996, Nature Genetics.

[26]  Y. Tochino,et al.  Breeding of a non-obese, diabetic strain of mice. , 1980, Jikken dobutsu. Experimental animals.

[27]  N. Risch Linkage strategies for genetically complex traits. I. Multilocus models. , 1990, American journal of human genetics.

[28]  R. Elston,et al.  Multilocus linkage tests based on affected relative pairs. , 2000, American journal of human genetics.

[29]  J. Todd,et al.  Resistance alleles at two non-major histocompatibility complex-linked insulin-dependent diabetes loci on chromosome 3, Idd3 and Idd10, protect nonobese diabetic mice from diabetes , 1994, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[30]  Duncan C. Thomas General relative-risk models for survival time and matched case-control analysis , 1981 .

[31]  N. Day,et al.  Synergism and interaction: are they equivalent? , 1979, American journal of epidemiology.

[32]  S. Wright The Results of Crosses between Inbred Strains of Guinea Pigs, Differing in Number of Digits. , 1934, Genetics.

[33]  R. Fisher XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance. , 1919, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

[34]  K. Rothman,et al.  The effect of joint exposure to alcohol and tobacco on risk of cancer of the mouth and pharynx. , 1972, Journal of chronic diseases.

[35]  M Farrall,et al.  Two-locus maximum lod score analysis of a multifactorial trait: joint consideration of IDDM2 and IDDM4 with IDDM1 in type 1 diabetes. , 1995, American journal of human genetics.

[36]  J. Todd,et al.  NOD Idd5 locus controls insulitis and diabetes and overlaps the orthologous CTLA4/IDDM12 and NRAMP1 loci in humans. , 2000, Diabetes.

[37]  J. Todd,et al.  Congenic mapping of the insulin-dependent diabetes (Idd) gene, Idd10, localizes two genes mediating the Idd10 effect and eliminates the candidate Fcgr1. , 1997, Journal of immunology.

[38]  N E Breslow,et al.  General relative risk functions for case-control studies. , 1985, American journal of epidemiology.

[39]  C. Cockerham,et al.  Design III with marker loci. , 1996, Genetics.