Gupta Sonali, Jordan I King, Mariño-Ramírez Leonardo
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
BMJ Public Health. 2023;1(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000655. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
The Rose hypothesis predicts that since genetic variation is greater within than between populations, genetic risk factors will be associated with individuals' risk of disease but not population disparities, and since socioenvironmental variation is greater between than within populations, socioenvironmental risk factors will be associated with population disparities but not individuals' disease risk.
We used the UK Biobank to test the Rose hypothesis for type 2 diabetes (T2D) ethnic disparities in the UK. Our cohort consists of 26 912 participants from Asian, black and white ethnic groups. Participants were characterised as T2D cases or controls based on the presence or absence of T2D diagnosis codes in electronic health records. T2D genetic risk was measured using a polygenic risk score (PRS), and socioeconomic deprivation was measured with the Townsend Index (TI). The variation of genetic (PRS) and socioeconomic (TI) risk factors within and between ethnic groups was calculated using analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression was used to associate PRS and TI with T2D cases, and mediation analysis was used to analyse the effect of PRS and TI on T2D ethnic group disparities.
T2D prevalence differs for Asian 23.34% (OR=5.14, CI=4.68 to 5.65), black 16.64% (OR=3.81, CI=3.44 to 4.22) and white 7.35% (reference) ethnic groups in the UK. Both genetic and socioenvironmental T2D risk factors show greater within (w) than between (b) ethnic group variation: PRS w=64.60%, b=35.40%; TI w=71.18%, b=28.19%. Nevertheless, both genetic risk (PRS OR=1.96, CI=1.87 to 2.07) and socioeconomic deprivation (TI OR=1.09, CI=1.08 to 1.10) are associated with T2D individual risk and mediate T2D ethnic disparities (Asian PRS=22.5%, TI=9.8%; black PRS=32.0%, TI=25.3%).
A relative excess of within-group versus between-group variation does not preclude T2D risk factors from contributing to T2D ethnic disparities. Our results support an integrative approach to health disparities research that includes both genetic and socioenvironmental risk factors.
罗斯假说预测,由于群体内部的基因变异大于群体之间的基因变异,遗传风险因素将与个体的疾病风险相关,而与群体差异无关;又因为社会环境变异在群体之间大于在群体内部,社会环境风险因素将与群体差异相关,而与个体的疾病风险无关。
我们利用英国生物银行来检验罗斯假说在英国2型糖尿病(T2D)种族差异方面的情况。我们的队列由来自亚洲、黑人和白人种族群体的26912名参与者组成。根据电子健康记录中是否存在T2D诊断代码,将参与者分为T2D病例或对照。使用多基因风险评分(PRS)测量T2D遗传风险,并用汤森指数(TI)测量社会经济剥夺程度。使用方差分析计算种族群体内部和之间的遗传(PRS)和社会经济(TI)风险因素的变异。多变量逻辑回归用于将PRS和TI与T2D病例相关联,中介分析用于分析PRS和TI对T2D种族差异的影响。
在英国,亚洲种族群体的T2D患病率为23.34%(OR=5.14,CI=4.68至5.65),黑人种族群体为16.64%(OR=3.81,CI=3.44至4.22),白人为7.35%(参照组)。遗传和社会环境T2D风险因素在种族群体内部(w)的变异均大于在种族群体之间(b)的变异:PRS,w=64.60%,b=35.40%;TI w=71.18%,b=28.19%。然而,遗传风险(PRS OR=1.96,CI=1.87至2.07)和社会经济剥夺(TI OR=1.09,CI=1.08至1.10)均与T2D个体风险相关,并介导T2D种族差异(亚洲人PRS=22.5%,TI=9.8%;黑人PRS=32.0%,TI=25.3%)。
群体内部变异相对于群体之间变异的相对过量并不排除T2D风险因素导致T2D种族差异。我们的结果支持一种综合的健康差异研究方法,该方法包括遗传和社会环境风险因素。