Abstract:Arvanitis et al. (1Arvanitis D.A. Goumenou A.G. Matalliotakis I.M. Koumantakis E.E. Spandidos D.A. Low-penetrance genes are associated with increased susceptibility to endometriosis.Fertil Steril. 2001; 76: 1202-1206Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar) recently found that “the combination of a CYP1A1 ml polymorphism and GSTM1 null deletion is closely associated with penetration of the endometriosis phenotype, whereas GSTT1 null deletion may add to the penetration of this trait.” Although CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 may individually or in combination be involved in the pathegenesis of endometriosis, a close inspection of this article reveals that their study design is seriously flawed, and their data are not sufficient to support their conclusion.Their study involves a single pedigree with four confirmed cases and one suspected case of endometriosis. These women’s genotypes at CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 are scored and then compared with those of 54 fertile females who served as controls. The affected grandmother, two of her three affected daughters, and one of her granddaughters who is suspected to be affected all share CYP1A1 wt/ml, GSTM1[1], and GSTT1[+]; another of her affected daughters has the same genotypes except for a GSTT1[−] variation. In addition, they find that the two most frequent genotypes in the control group are wt/wt, [−], and [+] (33%) and wt/wt, [−], and [+] (31%) at the three loci. Because all four confirmed affected pedigree members and one member suspected to be affected all share the genotypes CYP1A1 wt/ml and GSTM1[−], and because 13% of the 54 controls have the same genotypes, Arvanitis et al. conclude that the combination of CYP1A1 ml polymorphism and GSTM1 null deletion are associated with increased risk for endometriosis (p. 1205).Unfortunately, their inference is flagrantly flawed for several reasons. First, cases 2 (grandmother), 3, 4, 5 (daughters of case 2), and 6 (daughter of case 3) are relatives, which means that, regardless of their condition’s status, they will by definition share the same genotypes simply by chance— especially when the frequency of such genotypes is moderate or high in the population where they came from, as is the case (13%). Second, the use of a single, small pedigree for inference almost always raises the concern of ascertainment bias. We know nothing about how the pedigree was ascertained. Third, the small sample size in this study (four confirmed affected pedigree members) is far from adequate to draw any meaningful and statistically sound conclusions. Fourth, even with enough pedigree data, the association of certain genotypes of interest and endometriosis has to be statistically tested, and preferably tested against controls within the same pedigrees (i.e., age-matched, apparently endometriosis-free women in the same pedigrees). Identifying age-matched controls with the same pedigree can be done in several ways. One is to find controls who are older than the cases; the other is to select all available controls in the same pedigree, with adjustment for age of onset based on age-specific cumulative risk of endometriosis in that population. The latter is done routinely in human genetics, especially in linkage mapping of diseases such as endometriosis, which have a variable age of onset.If there is an indication that certain genotype combinations are found more frequently in endometriotic members than endometriosis-free ones, and this association is not random, then one can draw the conclusion that there may be an association. In view of these points, the data of Arvanitis et al. are woefully inadequate to draw any conclusions regarding the association between endometriosis and the genes CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1, let alone to support the claim of their low penetrance. At best, their findings should be viewed as anecdotal, providing no support of their claims.Genetic association studies are powerful tools to identify genes predisposing individuals to complex human diseases such as endometriosis, and such studies are conceptually simple (2Risch N. Merikangas K. The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases.Science. 1996; 273: 1516-1517Crossref PubMed Scopus (4263) Google Scholar, 3Thomson G. An overview of the genetic analysis of complex diseases, with reference to type 1 diabetes.Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 15: 265-277Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar). However, the actual establishment of an association between certain genes and endometriosis would require a clear understanding of the underlying principles, a sound study design, and appropriate data analysis. An ill-designed study, coupled with inadequate data analysis, will not illuminate the complex pathegenesis of endometriosis. Rather, it will only serve to further muddle the already murky water. Arvanitis et al. (1Arvanitis D.A. Goumenou A.G. Matalliotakis I.M. Koumantakis E.E. Spandidos D.A. Low-penetrance genes are associated with increased susceptibility to endometriosis.Fertil Steril. 2001; 76: 1202-1206Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar) recently found that “the combination of a CYP1A1 ml polymorphism and GSTM1 null deletion is closely associated with penetration of the endometriosis phenotype, whereas GSTT1 null deletion may add to the penetration of this trait.” Although CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 may individually or in combination be involved in the pathegenesis of endometriosis, a close inspection of this article reveals that their study design is seriously flawed, and their data are not sufficient to support their conclusion. Their study involves a single pedigree with four confirmed cases and one suspected case of endometriosis. These women’s genotypes at CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 are scored and then compared with those of 54 fertile females who served as controls. The affected grandmother, two of her three affected daughters, and one of her granddaughters who is suspected to be affected all share CYP1A1 wt/ml, GSTM1[1], and GSTT1[+]; another of her affected daughters has the same genotypes except for a GSTT1[−] variation. In addition, they find that the two most frequent genotypes in the control group are wt/wt, [−], and [+] (33%) and wt/wt, [−], and [+] (31%) at the three loci. Because all four confirmed affected pedigree members and one member suspected to be affected all share the genotypes CYP1A1 wt/ml and GSTM1[−], and because 13% of the 54 controls have the same genotypes, Arvanitis et al. conclude that the combination of CYP1A1 ml polymorphism and GSTM1 null deletion are associated with increased risk for endometriosis (p. 1205). Unfortunately, their inference is flagrantly flawed for several reasons. First, cases 2 (grandmother), 3, 4, 5 (daughters of case 2), and 6 (daughter of case 3) are relatives, which means that, regardless of their condition’s status, they will by definition share the same genotypes simply by chance— especially when the frequency of such genotypes is moderate or high in the population where they came from, as is the case (13%). Second, the use of a single, small pedigree for inference almost always raises the concern of ascertainment bias. We know nothing about how the pedigree was ascertained. Third, the small sample size in this study (four confirmed affected pedigree members) is far from adequate to draw any meaningful and statistically sound conclusions. Fourth, even with enough pedigree data, the association of certain genotypes of interest and endometriosis has to be statistically tested, and preferably tested against controls within the same pedigrees (i.e., age-matched, apparently endometriosis-free women in the same pedigrees). Identifying age-matched controls with the same pedigree can be done in several ways. One is to find controls who are older than the cases; the other is to select all available controls in the same pedigree, with adjustment for age of onset based on age-specific cumulative risk of endometriosis in that population. The latter is done routinely in human genetics, especially in linkage mapping of diseases such as endometriosis, which have a variable age of onset. If there is an indication that certain genotype combinations are found more frequently in endometriotic members than endometriosis-free ones, and this association is not random, then one can draw the conclusion that there may be an association. In view of these points, the data of Arvanitis et al. are woefully inadequate to draw any conclusions regarding the association between endometriosis and the genes CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1, let alone to support the claim of their low penetrance. At best, their findings should be viewed as anecdotal, providing no support of their claims. Genetic association studies are powerful tools to identify genes predisposing individuals to complex human diseases such as endometriosis, and such studies are conceptually simple (2Risch N. Merikangas K. The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases.Science. 1996; 273: 1516-1517Crossref PubMed Scopus (4263) Google Scholar, 3Thomson G. An overview of the genetic analysis of complex diseases, with reference to type 1 diabetes.Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 15: 265-277Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar). However, the actual establishment of an association between certain genes and endometriosis would require a clear understanding of the underlying principles, a sound study design, and appropriate data analysis. An ill-designed study, coupled with inadequate data analysis, will not illuminate the complex pathegenesis of endometriosis. Rather, it will only serve to further muddle the already murky water. ErratumFertility and SterilityVol. 78Issue 4Preview Full-Text PDF Detecting genetic differencesFertility and SterilityVol. 78Issue 2Preview Full-Text PDF Detecting genetic differences: Reply of the authorsFertility and SterilityVol. 78Issue 2Preview Full-Text PDF

Abstract:To the Editor: For the purpose of gene discovery, haplotypes can provide significant information. Haplotypes can increase the information for linkage with a set of markers, each of which on its own may provide weak information, and haplotypes can be used to identify genotype errors, through identification of double recombination over short chromosomal regions. In addition, the inference of haplotypes from pedigree data has been advocated as a method to refine positional cloning of disease genes (Sobel et al. Sobel et al., 1996Sobel E Lange K O'Connell JR Weeks DE Haplotyping algorithms.in: Speed T Waterman M Genetic mapping and DNA sequencing: IMA volumes in mathematics and its applications. Springer-Verlag, New York1996: 89-110Crossref Google Scholar). Haplotypes can be used to identify chromosomal regions that are common among affected persons in isolated populations, because these subjects may have inherited a conserved chromosomal segment from a common founder. The implicit basis of fine mapping by haplotypes is linkage disequilibrium (LD) between alleles of the underlying susceptibility locus and at least one of the marker loci. This is due to the small number of recombinations of the disease and marker loci, which preserves the founder haplotype among affected individuals. Although it is possible for the alleles of different marker loci to be in linkage equilibrium among themselves yet be in disequilibrium with the disease locus, this will most likely occur only when the disease-causing allele is much younger than the origin of the marker alleles. Hence, if closely spaced markers are useful for haplotype fine mapping, it is reasonable to assume that the markers themselves are in LD. However, most commonly used software packages that can be used for the inference of haplotypes for pedigree members assume linkage equilibrium among the markers. Despite this assumption, it is not unusual for investigators to proceed with haplotype fine mapping by inferring haplotypes by the use of software that assumes no LD. Even the documentation for GENEHUNTER 1.0 states that “Haplotypes can be invaluable tools … in searching for shared genomic regions of distantly related affected individuals and indicating linkage disequilibrium between markers….” However, this practice can be misleading, as we discovered in our analysis of the association of prostate cancer (PC) with haplotypes composed of three marker loci within the HPC1 gene. This example is provided to illustrate the impact that LD can have on haplotype inference. The HPC1/RNASEL gene on chromosome 1q25 was recently identified as a candidate gene for hereditary PC (Carpten et al. Carpten et al., 2002Carpten J Nupponen N Isaacs S Sood R Robbins C Xu J Faruque M et al.Germline mutations in the ribonuclease L gene in families showing linkage with HPC1.Nat Genet. 2002; 30: 181-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (402) Google Scholar). To test for potential gene associations and increased risk for disease, three missense polymorphisms (Ile97Leu, Arg462Gln, and Glu541Asp) were genotyped in 432 patients with familial PC and in 470 population-based control subjects (Wang et al. Wang et al., 2002Wang L McDonnell S Elkins D Slager S Christensen E Marks A Cunningham J Peterson B Jacobsen S Cerhan J Blute M Schaid D Thibodeau S Analysis of the HPC1/RNASEL gene in familial and sporadic prostate cancer.Am J Hum Genet. 2002; 71: 116-123Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar). These three loci, with linear order 97, 462, then 541, are in close proximity (loci 97 and 462 separated by 1.1 kb; loci 462 and 541 separated by 3.2 kb), so our intent was to compare the frequencies of haplotypes composed of these three loci between the patients with familial PC and the unrelated population-based control subjects. Haplotype frequencies among the unrelated control individuals were estimated by an “EM algorithm” (Excoffier and Slatkin Excoffier and Slatkin, 1995Excoffier L Slatkin M Maximum-likelihood estimation of molecular haplotype frequencies in a diploid population.Mol Biol Evol. 1995; 12: 921-927PubMed Google Scholar; Hawley and Kidd Hawley and Kidd, 1995Hawley ME Kidd KK HAPLO: a program using the EM algorithm to estimate the frequencies of multi-site haplotypes.J Hered. 1995; 86: 409-411PubMed Google Scholar; Long et al. Long et al., 1995Long JC Williams RC Urbanek M An E-M algorithm and testing strategy for multiple-locus haplotypes.Am J Hum Genet. 1995; 56: 799-810PubMed Google Scholar), as implemented in S-PLUS software (Schaid et al. Schaid et al., 2002Schaid D Rowland C Tines D Jacobson R Poland G Score tests for association between traits and haplotypes when linkage phase is ambiguous.Am J Hum Genet. 2002; 70: 425-434Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1538) Google Scholar), which enumerates all possible haplotypes for each subject and uses the combined data from all control subjects (including those with and without haplotype ambiguities) to estimate the haplotype frequencies. This algorithm assumes that the haplotypes are randomly paired for each subject, which implies that each of the loci is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was tested for each of the three loci, among the controls, and only locus 541 suggested some departure (P=.06). This locus tended to have fewer heterozygotes than expected (44.9% observed vs. 49.2% expected), which does not tend to bias the EM algorithm for the estimation of haplotype frequencies (Fallin and Schork Fallin and Schork, 2000Fallin D Schork N Accuracy of haplotype frequency estimation for biallelic loci, via the expectation-maximization algorithm for unphased diploid genotype data.Am J Hum Genet. 2000; 67: 947-959Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (334) Google Scholar). The 435 patients with familial PC came from 178 pedigrees (1–7 patients genotyped per pedigree). Haplotype frequencies among the familial patients were estimated by first inferring the most likely haplotypes for each pedigree member and then computing frequencies among the inferred haplotypes. To infer haplotypes, we used the program GENEHUNTER (Kruglyak et al. Kruglyak et al., 1996Kruglyak L Daly MJ Reeve-Daly MP Lander ES Parametric and nonparametric linkage analysis: a unified multipoint approach.Am J Hum Genet. 1996; 58: 1347-1363PubMed Google Scholar), which is based on determination of the maximum-likelihood set of inheritance vectors that explain the data, under the assumption of linkage equilibrium of the marker loci. The marker allele frequencies were based on the control individuals, although the frequencies of the “1” alleles were similar between case and control subjects (1.9% vs. 1.3% for Ile97Leu; 30.6% vs. 37.2% for Arg462Gln; 47.5% vs. 43.5% for Glu541Asp). We allowed minimal chance of recombination (recombination fraction = 0.001) between adjacent markers. The resulting haplotype frequencies are presented in table 1. The most remarkable difference between GENEHUNTER haplotype frequencies for cases versus those for controls estimated by the EM algorithm is for haplotype 5, which has a frequency of 11.8% among cases but did not occur among controls.Table 1Haplotypes and their Frequencies Based on Pedigree Inference and the EM Algorithm Applied to Unrelated SubjectsLocus VariantFrequency of HaplotypeHaplotypeIle97Arg462Glu541Cases InferredaHaplotypes inferred by GENEHUNTER.Cases EMbHaplotype frequencies estimated by EM algorithm for case subjects; one affected member of each family was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis.Controls EMbHaplotype frequencies estimated by EM algorithm for case subjects; one affected member of each family was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis.Cases, No LDcHaplotype frequencies for no LD were estimated by the product of allele frequencies.Controls, No LDcHaplotype frequencies for no LD were estimated by the product of allele frequencies.1111.000.000.000.003.0022112.000.000.000.003.0033121.008.020.014.007.0044122.015.000.000.007.0055211.118.000.000.143.1576212.195.306.367.158.2057221.339.455.420.323.2718222.324.219.199.357.353a Haplotypes inferred by GENEHUNTER.b Haplotype frequencies estimated by EM algorithm for case subjects; one affected member of each family was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis.c Haplotype frequencies for no LD were estimated by the product of allele frequencies. Open table in a new tab Because the method used to estimate haplotype frequencies differed between cases and controls, we repeated our analysis but randomly sampled one case per family, and then used the EM algorithm to compute haplotype frequencies among the cases. The results from this analysis (table 1) show that the haplotype frequencies did not differ between cases and controls and that the main difference is caused by the use of GENEHUNTER for pedigrees versus the EM algorithm for a sample of unrelated cases. Even when we repeated this analysis, making a new random selection of cases, similar results were found. Why would GENEHUNTER, which uses all the pedigree data, produce such different haplotype frequencies from those produced by the EM algorithm, which uses only one random case per family? Two factors influenced our results. First, the markers are in strong LD, yet GENEHUNTER assumes that they are in equilibrium. The EM algorithm does not assume linkage equilibrium (in fact, LD can be a benefit). The strength of LD is shown in table 1 by the large discrepancy between estimated haplotype frequencies among controls when the EM algorithm was used and the estimated haplotype frequencies when linkage equilibrium was assumed. Furthermore, the frequencies of the inferred haplotypes among cases are close to the expected frequencies among the random sample of cases if there were no LD (see table 1). Second, the order in which the alleles are coded in the input file to GENEHUNTER can determine the inferred haplotype. A simple example in our data nicely illustrates the problem. If we consider an affected pair of brothers who do not have parental genotypes available and who are both heterozygous for each of the three loci, there are four possible pairs of haplotypes per man. These possible haplotype pairs are listed in table 2, along with the posterior probabilities of the haplotype pairs. The posterior probability is the probability of a particular pair of haplotypes, given the observed marker data, and was computed when the EM algorithm was applied to the randomly selected sample of one patient per family. This posterior probability allows for LD, and we also present (table 2) the posterior probabilities when no LD is assumed (i.e., equal posterior probabilities).Table 2Posterior Probabilities of Haplotype Pairs for a Patient from Example PedigreeHaplotype PairPosterior ProbabilityProbability if No LD1 8.00.253 61.00.252 7.00.254 5.00.25 Open table in a new tab For this example, the EM algorithm indicates that the only pair of likely haplotypes is 3 and 6. In contrast, under the assumption of no LD, all pairs of haplotypes are equally likely. If we code the alleles at the three loci in the pedigree data file as “1 2 1 2 1 2” for both affected brothers, the inferred haplotypes by GENEHUNTER are 1 and 8. However, if we reverse the order of alleles, the inferred haplotypes change. For example, reversing the order for only the first locus (e.g., “2 1”) results in haplotypes 4 and 5; reversing the order for the second locus results in haplotypes 3 and 6; reversing the order of the third locus results in haplotypes 2 and 7. Apparently, when all pairs of haplotypes are considered to be equally likely (because linkage equilibrium is assumed), haplotypes are determined by GENEHUNTER according to the order of alleles in the input file. This feature, combined with the assumption of linkage equilibrium, can grossly mislead investigators who assume the inferred haplotypes are correct. For this example pedigree, we also used SIMWALK2 to infer haplotypes (Sobel and Lange Sobel and Lange, 1996Sobel E Lange K Descent graphs in pedigree analysis: applications to haplotyping, location scores, and marker-sharing statistics.Am J Hum Genet. 1996; 58: 1323-1337PubMed Google Scholar). For our original order of alleles, “1 2 1 2 1 2,” the inferred haplotypes were 4 and 5. As with GENEHUNTER, reversing the order of alleles changed the inferred haplotypes. Furthermore, SIMWALK2 uses Markov-chain Monte Carlo and simulated annealing algorithms, which depend on initial values for random seeds; changing these initial seed values can change the inferred haplotypes. Both GENEHUNTER and SIMWALK2 assume no LD, making it possible to compute either exact (GENEHUNTER) or simulated approximate (SIMWALK2) multipoint linkage statistics, and these programs have proved to be highly effective for these types of analyses. However, users should be cautious about blind use of the inferred haplotypes from this software as if they were directly measured haplotypes. Inferring haplotypes by software that assumes no LD—and then using the inferred haplotypes to measure LD (Abecasis and Cookson Abecasis and Cookson, 2000Abecasis G Cookson W GOLD—graphical overview of linkage disequilibrium.Bioinformatics. 2000; 16: 182-183Crossref PubMed Scopus (673) Google Scholar)—may be particularly hazardous. Although our example may be extreme, because of small pedigrees with few founders (i.e., little pedigree information from which to infer haplotypes) and because of the large degree of LD among the markers, current evidence points to a frequent occurrence of strong LD among markers spanning short chromosomal regions (Reich et al. Reich et al., 2001Reich D Cargill M Bolk S Ireland J Sabei P Richter D Lavery T Kouyoumjian R Farhadian SF Ward R Lander E Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome.Nature. 2001; 411: 199-204Crossref PubMed Scopus (1287) Google Scholar). Rather than inferring the most likely haplotypes under the assumption of no LD and then using these most likely haplotypes as if they were observed, we can establish a better method of analysis by allowing for LD when we estimate haplotype frequencies with pedigree data and then considering all possible haplotype configurations, as was recently implemented for nuclear families (Rohde and Fuerst Rohde and Fuerst, 2001Rohde K Fuerst R Haplotyping and estimation of haplotype frequencies for closely linked biallelic multilocus genetic phenotypes including nuclear family information.Hum Mutat. 2001; 17: 289-295Crossref PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar). The advantage of this approach is that each possible haplotype configuration is weighted according to its likelihood, and likelihood-ratio tests that compare haplotype frequencies between cases and controls would implicitly take into account the increased variance of the haplotype frequency estimates due to linkage-phase ambiguity. However, this approach is computationally intensive for larger pedigrees, because the number of pedigree haplotype configurations is extremely large. For this situation, sensitivity analysis may help to evaluate the reliability of haplotypes inferred from GENEHUNTER or SIMWALK2. If a large number of pedigrees are available, one way to evaluate whether the inferred haplotypes are reasonable would be to compare frequencies of inferred haplotypes with haplotype frequencies based on application of the EM algorithm to pedigree founders or to a random sample of one subject per pedigree, if founders are not available. For large samples, these two procedures should provide similar haplotype frequencies. In addition, one should estimate pairwise LD among the markers, to determine whether any markers are in strong LD, in which case one should be cautious about using software that assumes no LD to infer haplotypes.

Detecting Genetic Differences

Glutathione S-transferase M1 and T1 Genotypes and Endometriosis Risk: a Case-Controlled Study.

Body mass index, lipid profile, and endothelial dysfunction gene polymorphism in women with early-onset and late-onset preeclampsia

Association Between CYP19A1, GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 Genetic Polymorphisms and the Development of Endometriosis in a Chinese Population.

Caution on Pedigree Haplotype Inference with Software That Assumes Linkage Equilibrium

Glutathione S-Transferases M1/T1 Gene Polymorphisms And Endometriosis: A Meta-Analysis Of Genetic Association Studies

Association of endometriosis risk and genetic polymorphisms involving sex steroid biosynthesis and their receptors: a meta-analysis.

Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Of Pi-Class Glutathione S-Transferase And Susceptibility To Endometrial Carcinoma

The search for genetic variants predisposing women to endometriosis.

No Association Between Matrix Metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, MMP-3, and MMP-7 SNPs and Endometrial Cancer Risk.

The association of endometriosis risk and genetic polymorphisms involving dioxin detoxification enzymes: a systematic review.

Genomic characterisation of the overlap of endometriosis with 76 comorbidities identifies pleiotropic and causal mechanisms underlying disease risk

Insights from Mendelian randomization and genetic correlation analyses into the relationship between endometriosis and its comorbidities

Artificial Intelligence Based Study Association between p53 Gene Polymorphism and Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Homozygous C677T Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (MTHFR) Polymorphism as a Risk Factor for Endometriosis: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

[Investigation of familial tendency of endometriosis]

The Quest for Genetic Sequence Variants Conferring Risk of Endometriosis

Role of FN1 and GREB1 gene polymorphisms in endometriosis

Relationship between I/D polymorphism of angiotensin-converting enzyme gene and polycystic ovarian syndrome

Autoimmune Disease-Related Hub Genes are Potential Biomarkers and Associated with Immune Microenvironment in Endometriosis

Dissecting the shared genetic architecture between endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome