Ethnic differences in adiposity and diabetes risk - insights from genetic studies.

Type 2 diabetes is more common in non-Europeans and starts at a younger age and at lower BMI cut-offs. This review discusses the insights from genetic studies about pathophysiological mechanisms which determine risk of disease with a focus on the role of adiposity and body fat distribution in ethnic disparity in risk of type 2 diabetes. During the past decade, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 400 genetic variants associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes. The Eurocentric nature of these genetic studies has made them less effective in identifying mechanisms that make non-Europeans more susceptible to higher risk of disease. One possible mechanism suggested by epidemiological studies is the role of ethnic difference in body fat distribution. Using genetic variants associated with an ability to store extra fat in a safe place, which is subcutaneous adipose tissue, we discuss how different ethnic groups could be genetically less susceptible to type 2 diabetes by developing a more favourable fat distribution.

Type 1 diabetes genetic risk score discriminates between monogenic and Type 1 diabetes in children diagnosed at the age of <5 years in the Iranian population.

AIM: To examine the extent to which discriminatory testing using antibodies and Type 1 diabetes genetic risk score, validated in European populations, is applicable in a non-European population. METHODS: We recruited 127 unrelated children with diabetes diagnosed between 9 months and 5 years from two centres in Iran. All children underwent targeted next-generation sequencing of 35 monogenic diabetes genes. We measured three islet autoantibodies (islet antigen 2, glutamic acid decarboxylase and zinc transporter 8) and generated a Type 1 diabetes genetic risk score in all children. RESULTS: We identified six children with monogenic diabetes, including four novel mutations: homozygous mutations in WFS1 (n=3), SLC19A2 and SLC29A3, and a heterozygous mutation in GCK. All clinical features were similar in children with monogenic diabetes (n=6) and in the rest of the cohort (n=121). The Type 1 diabetes genetic risk score discriminated children with monogenic from Type 1 diabetes [area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.97)]. All children with monogenic diabetes were autoantibody-negative. In children with no mutation, 59 were positive to glutamic acid decarboxylase, 39 to islet antigen 2 and 31 to zinc transporter 8. Measuring zinc transporter 8 increased the number of autoantibody-positive individuals by eight. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides the first evidence that Type 1 diabetes genetic risk score can be used to distinguish monogenic from Type 1 diabetes in an Iranian population with a large number of consanguineous unions. This test can be used to identify children with a higher probability of having monogenic diabetes who could then undergo genetic testing. Identification of these individuals would reduce the cost of treatment and improve the management of their clinical course.