Host factors and genetic susceptibility to infections due to intracellular bacteria and fastidious organisms.

While genetic polymorphisms play a paramount role in tuberculosis (TB), less is known about their contribution to the severity of diseases caused by other intracellular bacteria and fastidious microorganisms. We searched electronic databases for observational studies reporting on host factors and genetic predisposition to infections caused by intracellular fastidious bacteria published up to 30 May 2014. The contribution of genetic polymorphisms was documented for TB. This includes genetic defects in the mononuclear phagocyte/T helper cell type 1 (Th1) pathway contributing to disseminated TB disease in children and genome-wide linkage analysis (GWAS) in reactivated pulmonary TB in adults. Similarly, experimental studies supported the role of host genetic factors in the clinical presentation of illnesses resulting from other fastidious intracellular bacteria. These include IL-6 -174G/C or low mannose-binding (MBL) polymorphisms, which are incriminated in chronic pulmonary conditions triggered by C. pneumoniae, type 2-like cytokine secretion polymorphisms, which are correlated with various clinical patterns of M. pneumoniae infections, and genetic variation in the NOD2 gene, which is an indicator of tubal pathology resulting from Chamydia trachomatis infections. Monocyte/macrophage migration and T lymphocyte recruitment defects are corroborated to ineffective granuloma formation observed among patients with chronic Q fever. Similar genetic polymorphisms have also been suggested for infections caused by T. whipplei although not confirmed yet. In conclusion, this review supports the paramount role of genetic factors in clinical presentations and severity of infections caused by intracellular fastidious bacteria. Genetic predisposition should be further explored through such as exome sequencing.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Immunochip SNP array identifies novel genetic variants conferring susceptibility to candidaemia.

Candidaemia is the fourth most common cause of bloodstream infection, with a high mortality rate of up to 40%. Identification of host genetic factors that confer susceptibility to candidaemia may aid in designing adjunctive immunotherapeutic strategies. Here we hypothesize that variation in immune genes may predispose to candidaemia. We analyse 118,989 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across 186 loci known to be associated with immune-mediated diseases in the largest candidaemia cohort to date of 217 patients of European ancestry and a group of 11,920 controls. We validate the significant associations by comparison with a disease-matched control group. We observe significant association between candidaemia and SNPs in the CD58 (P = 1.97 × 10(-11); odds ratio (OR) = 4.68), LCE4A-C1orf68 (P = 1.98 × 10(-10); OR = 4.25) and TAGAP (P = 1.84 × 10(-8); OR = 2.96) loci. Individuals carrying two or more risk alleles have an increased risk for candidaemia of 19.4-fold compared with individuals carrying no risk allele. We identify three novel genetic risk factors for candidaemia, which we subsequently validate for their role in antifungal host defence.

Risk prediction of prevalent diabetes in a Swiss population using a weighted genetic score--the CoLaus Study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Several susceptibility genes for type 2 diabetes have been discovered recently. Individually, these genes increase the disease risk only minimally. The goals of the present study were to determine, at the population level, the risk of diabetes in individuals who carry risk alleles within several susceptibility genes for the disease and the added value of this genetic information over the clinical predictors. METHODS: We constructed an additive genetic score using the most replicated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 15 type 2 diabetes-susceptibility genes, weighting each SNP with its reported effect. We tested this score in the extensively phenotyped population-based cross-sectional CoLaus Study in Lausanne, Switzerland (n = 5,360), involving 356 diabetic individuals. RESULTS: The clinical predictors of prevalent diabetes were age, BMI, family history of diabetes, WHR, and triacylglycerol/HDL-cholesterol ratio. After adjustment for these variables, the risk of diabetes was 2.7 (95% CI 1.8-4.0, p = 0.000006) for individuals with a genetic score within the top quintile, compared with the bottom quintile. Adding the genetic score to the clinical covariates improved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve slightly (from 0.86 to 0.87), yet significantly (p = 0.002). BMI was similar in these two extreme quintiles. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In this population, a simple weighted 15 SNP-based genetic score provides additional information over clinical predictors of prevalent diabetes. At this stage, however, the clinical benefit of this genetic information is limited.

Male-pattern baldness susceptibility locus at 20p11.

We conducted a genome-wide association study for androgenic alopecia in 1,125 men and identified a newly associated locus at chromosome 20p11.22, confirmed in three independent cohorts (n = 1,650; OR = 1.60, P = 1.1 x 10(-14) for rs1160312). The one man in seven who harbors risk alleles at both 20p11.22 and AR (encoding the androgen receptor) has a sevenfold-increased odds of androgenic alopecia (OR = 7.12, P = 3.7 x 10(-15)).

Impact of a cis-associated gene expression SNP on chromosome 20q11.22 on bipolar disorder susceptibility, hippocampal structure and cognitive performance.

BackgroundBipolar disorder is a highly heritable polygenic disorder. Recent enrichment analyses suggest that there may be true risk variants for bipolar disorder in the expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) in the brain.AimsWe sought to assess the impact of eQTL variants on bipolar disorder risk by combining data from both bipolar disorder genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and brain eQTL.MethodTo detect single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that influence expression levels of genes associated with bipolar disorder, we jointly analysed data from a bipolar disorder GWAS (7481 cases and 9250 controls) and a genome-wide brain (cortical) eQTL (193 healthy controls) using a Bayesian statistical method, with independent follow-up replications. The identified risk SNP was then further tested for association with hippocampal volume (n = 5775) and cognitive performance (n = 342) among healthy individuals.ResultsIntegrative analysis revealed a significant association between a brain eQTL rs6088662 on chromosome 20q11.22 and bipolar disorder (log Bayes factor = 5.48; bipolar disorder P = 5.85×10(-5)). Follow-up studies across multiple independent samples confirmed the association of the risk SNP (rs6088662) with gene expression and bipolar disorder susceptibility (P = 3.54×10(-8)). Further exploratory analysis revealed that rs6088662 is also associated with hippocampal volume and cognitive performance in healthy individuals.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that 20q11.22 is likely a risk region for bipolar disorder; they also highlight the informative value of integrating functional annotation of genetic variants for gene expression in advancing our understanding of the biological basis underlying complex disorders, such as bipolar disorder.