Reply to Rampoldi Et Al.

Yuqing Chen,Daniel T. O’Connor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2013.164

IF: 19.6

2013-01-01

Kidney International

Abstract:Rampoldi et al. queried two uromodulin (UMOD) haplotyping issues in their letter.1.Rampoldi L. Köttgen A. Devuyst O. The Effect of common uromodulin variants on urinary protein level and gene transcription.Kidney Int. 2013; 84: 410-411Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar Here we reply in hopes of clarification and simplification. Q-1: Mixing alleles from forward and reverse strands, and the haplotypes used in the UMOD promoter luciferase analysis. First of all, we should clarify that the alleles, diploid genotypes, and haplotypes that we used during functional characterization of UMOD promoter/luciferase plasmids were all from the sense strand, as illustrated in sequence readouts from our reporter plasmids (Figure 1a); the three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the proximal UMOD promoter are (sense strand) rs13333226 (T>C), rs6497476 (A>G), and rs4293393 (T>C). In our construction of promoter/reporters vector, we obtained promoter inserts (PCR products) from human samples with primers designed according to the reference sequence (RefSeq clone, sense strand) from the UCSC genome database. Thus, our promoter/reporter luciferase results are based on the correct alleles at the three SNPs. The actual sense-strand alleles of these three SNPs in the original promoter haplotype are TAT (Figure 1a). To create different sense-strand haplotypes (Figure 1b), we used site-directed mutagenesis followed by resequencing to verify the correct alleles. However, we did introduce an element of uncertainty into the manuscript by reporting haplotypes based on both forward and reverse strands: rs13333226 A/G (antisense strand), rs6497476 T/C (antisense strand), and rs4293393 T/C (sense strand), rs719800 G/A (antisense strand), rs11859916G/A (antisense strand), rs4283153 C/T (sense strand), and rs4632135A/G (sense strand). One can design SNP assays (for haplotyping) based on either the forward or reverse strands. The subsequent haplotype analysis will then yield the same number and frequency of haplotypes, but differences at antisense-strand SNP identities (e.g., C/T vs. G/A). Unfortunately, we kept the mixed (sense/antisense) nomenclature in the haplotypes, and for internal consistency carried that nomenclature into the descriptions of the promoter. In retrospect, we should have changed all antisense bases in each haplotype to the bases in the sense strand: rs13333226 (T>C), rs6497476 (A>G), and rs4293393 (T>C). What led us to the awkwardness of mixing strands? We initially considered that, in many previous reports on UMOD, investigators were accustomed to referring to rs13333226 A/G (antisense strand), rs6497476 T/C (antisense strand), and rs4293393 C/T (sense strand), and we wanted to remain consistent with past nomenclature. But clearly we created more confusion than clarity. We hope that Figures 1a and b begin to clarify the strand issues. Q-2: The second question was about longer haplotype association analyses with urinary uromodulin level. At the end of the day, the question of highest interest here is whether genetic variants at the UMOD locus can predict UMOD protein excretion into the urine; i.e., is there a UMOD cis-QTL, especially in the proximal promoter? To answer this question, we typed the UCSD twin cohort for UMOD excretion (i.e., urine UMOD/creatinine), and then tested the effect of two UMOD promoter variants on the trait: rs13333226 (T>C, sense strand) and rs4293393 (T>C, sense strand). These two SNPs, in perfect linkage disequilibrium (LD) (R2=1.0), were both highly predictive (each P-value=2.01E-06) of UMOD/creatinine, in an additive genetic model (C/C30kbp. Initially, this seemed reasonable, as the overall HapMap LD plot for the CHB (Chinese-Han-Beijing) population indicated stretches of LD (by D′) spanning the entire UMOD locus, and up to ∼35kbp (ref. 2; main paper, supplementary Figure S1 online), albeit with internal blocks wherein LD declines. However, both you (your Figure 1b) and we2.Han J. Chen Y. Liu Y. et al.Common variants of the UMOD promoter associated with blood pressure in a community-based Chinese cohort.Hypertens Res. 2012; 35: 769-774Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar,3.Han J. Liu Y. Rao F. et al.Common genetic variants of the human uromodulin gene regulate transcription and predict plasma uric acid levels.Kidney Int. 2013; 83: 733-740Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar have shown, by custom plots in HaploView, that as many as three LD blocks may span this region, diminishing the feasibility of an extended haplotype approach. In the end, the entire controversy may be rendered moot by the association of UMOD excretion with UMOD promoter variants in the UCSD twins (Table 1).