Advertisement

High frequency of pathogenic and rare sequence variants in diabetes-related genes among Russian patients with diabetes in pregnancy

  • Natalia ZubkovaEmail author
  • Fatima Burumkulova
  • Margarita Plechanova
  • Vasily Petrukhin
  • Vasily Petrov
  • Evgeny Vasilyev
  • Anton Panov
  • Ekaterina Sorkina
  • Victoria Ulyatovskaya
  • Nina Makretskaya
  • Anatoly Tiulpakov
Original Article
  • 77 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Pregnancy and diabetes

Abstract

Aims

Diabetes in pregnancy may be associated with monogenic defects of beta-cell function, frequency of which depends on ethnicity, clinical criteria for selection of patients as well as methods used for genetic analysis. The aim was to evaluate the contribution and molecular spectrum of mutations among genes associated with monogenic diabetes in non-obese Russian patients with diabetes in pregnancy using the next-generation sequencing (NGS).

Methods

188 non-obese pregnant women with diabetes during pregnancy were included in the study; among them 57 subjects (30.3%) met the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria of preexisting pregestational diabetes (pre-GDM), whereas 131 women (69.7%) fulfilled criteria of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A custom NGS panel targeting 28 diabetes causative genes was used for sequencing. The sequence variants were rated according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines.

Results

In total, 23 pathogenic, 18 likely pathogenic and 16 variants of uncertain significance were identified in 59/188 patients (31.4%). The majority of variants (38/59) were found in GCK gene. No significant differences in the number of variants among the two study groups (pre-GDM and GDM) were observed.

Conclusions

The study suggests that frequency of monogenic variants of diabetes might be underestimated, which warrants a broader use of genetic testing, especially in pregnancy.

Keywords

Non-obese pregnant women Diabetes in pregnancy Next-generation sequencing Monogenic forms of diabetes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Grant 16-15-10408 of the Russian Science Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Protocol no. 88 dated 30.06.2016).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Barbour LA, McCurdy CE, Hernandez TL, Kirwan JP, Catalano PM, Friedman JE (2009) Cellular mechanisms for insulin resistance in normal pregnancy and gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 30(Suppl.S2):112–119.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-s202 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR et al (2008) Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 358(19):1991–2002.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pintaudi B, Fresa R, Dalfrà M et al (2018) The risk stratification of adverse neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes (STRONG) study. Acta Diabetol 55(12):1261–1273.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-018-1208-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colom C, Corcoy R (2010) Maturity onset diabetes of the young and pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 24(4):605–615.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2010.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dreval A, Shestakova T, Bunak I (2015) The use of modern approaches to the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in the Moscow Region. RMJ “Endocrinology” 23(8):464–466.  https://doi.org/10.18786/2072-0505-2016-44-4-406-413 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goueslard K, Cottenet J, Mariet AS, Sagot P, Petit JM, Quantin C (2017) Early screening for type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes mellitus in France: hardly any impact of the 2010 guidelines. Acta Diabetol Jul 54(7):645–651.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-017-0986-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gjesing A, Rui G, Lauenborg J et al (2017) High prevalence of diabetes-predisposing variants in MODY genes among danish women with gestational diabetes mellitus. J Endocr Soc 1(6):681–690.  https://doi.org/10.1210/js.2017-00040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellard S, Beards F, Allen LI et al (2000) A high prevalence of glucokinase mutations in gestational diabetic subjects selected by clinical criteria. Diabetologia 43(2):250–253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001250050038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleinberger JW, Pollin TI (2015) Undiagnosed MODY: time for action. Curr Diab Rep 15(12):110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-015-0681-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shields BM, Hicks S, Shepherd MH, Colclough K, Hattersley AT, Ellard S (2010) Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY): how many cases are we missing? Diabetologia 53(12):2504–2508.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-010-1799-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinreich SS, Bosma A, Henneman L et al (2015) A decade of molecular genetic testing for MODY: a retrospective study of utilization in The Netherlands. Eur J Hum Genet 23(1):29–33.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schober E, Rami B, Grabert M, Thon A, Kapellen T, Reinehr T, Holl RW (2009) Phenotypical aspects of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY diabetes) in comparison with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in children and adolescents: experience from a large multicentre database. Diabet Med 26(5):466–473.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02720.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lorini R, Klersy C, d’Annunzio G et al (2009) Maturity-onset diabetes of the young in children with incidental hyperglycemia: a multicenter Italian study of 172 families. Diabetes Care 32(10):1864–1868.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zubkova N, Gioeva O, Tichonovich Y et al (2015) the prevalence of different subtypes of maturity-onset diabetes of the young in Russian Federation as defined by targeted next-generation sequencing. Materials of “54th Annual Meeting of the ESPE” Hormone Research in Paediatrics Diabetes P.192Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Diabetes Association (2018) Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 41(Supplement 1):13–27.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-S002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H (2010) ANNOVAR: Functional annotation of genetic variants from next-generation sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res 38(16):e164.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17(5):405–424.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV et al (2016) Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536:285–291.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    den Dunnen JT, Dalgleish R, Maglott DR et al (2016) HGVS recommendations for the description of sequence variants: 2016 update. Hum Mutat 37:564–569.  https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Desmet FO, Hamroun D, Lalande M, Collod-Béroud G, Claustres M, Béroud C (2009) Human Splicing Finder: an online bioinformatics tool to predict splicing signals. Nucleic Acids Res 37(9):e67.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doddabelavangala Mruthyunjaya M, Chapla A, Hesarghatta Shyamasunder A et al (2017) Comprehensive maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY) gene screening in pregnant women with diabetes in India. PLoS One 12(1):e0168656.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gjesing AP, Rui G, Lauenborg J et al (2017) High prevalence of diabetes-predisposing variants in MODY genes among danish women with gestational diabetes mellitus. J Endocr Soc 1(6):681–690.  https://doi.org/10.1210/js.2017-00040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huvinen E, Eriksson JG, Stach-Lempinen B, Tiitinen A, Koivusalo SB (2018) Heterogeneity of gestational diabetes (GDM) and challenges in developing a GDM risk score. Acta Diabetol Dec 55(12):1251–1259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-018-1224-x (Epub 2018 Sep 17) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bellanné-Chantelot C, Carette C, Riveline JP et al (2008) The type and the position of HNF1A mutation modulate age at diagnosis of diabetes in patients with maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY)-3. Diabetes 57:503–508.  https://doi.org/10.2337/db07-0859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weber S, Moriniere V, Knüppel T et al (2006) Prevalence of mutations in renal developmental genes in children with renal hypodysplasia: results of the ESCAPE study. J Am Soc Nephrol 17(10):28642870.  https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006030277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharma S, Jhala US, Johnson T, Ferreri K, Leonard J, Montminy M (1997) Hormonal regulation of an islet-specific enhancer in the pancreatic homeobox gene STF-1. Mol Cell Biol 17(5):2598–2604.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.17.5.2598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stoffers DA, Ferrer J, Clarke WL, Habener JF (1997) Early-onset type-II diabetes mellitus (MODY4) linked to IPF1. Nat Genet 17(2):138–139.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1097-138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neve B, Fernandez-Zapico ME, Ashkenazi-Katalan V et al (2005) Role of transcription factor KLF11 and its diabetes-associated gene variants in pancreatic beta cell function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(13):4807–4812.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409177102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plengvidhya N, Kooptiwut S, Songtawee N et al (2007) PAX4 mutations in Thais with maturity onset diabetes of the young. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92(7):2821–2826.  https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2006-1927 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bonnefond A, Philippe J, Durand E et al (2012) Whole-exome sequencing and high throughput genotyping identified KCNJ11 as the thirteenth MODY gene. PLoS One 7(6):e37423.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jeron A, Hengstenberg C, Holmer S et al (2004) KCNJ11 polymorphisms and sudden cardiac death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Mol Cell Cardiol 36(2):287–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2003.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang X, Li W, Ma L et al (2017) Investigation of miRNA-binding site variants and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in Chinese pregnant women. Acta Diabetol 54(3):309–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-017-0969-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lambrinoudaki I, Vlachou SA, Creatsas G (2010) Genetics in gestational diabetes mellitus: association with incidence, severity, pregnancy outcome and response to treatment. Curr Diabetes Rev 6(6):393–399.  https://doi.org/10.2174/157339910793499155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ober C, Xiang KS, Thisted RA, Indovina KA, Wason CJ, Dooley S (1989) Increased risk for gestational diabetes mellitus associated with insulin receptor and insulin-like growth factor II restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Genet Epidemiol 6(5):559–569.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.1370060502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strom TM, Hörtnagel K, Hofmann S et al (1998) Diabetes insipidus, diabetes mellitus, optic atrophy and deafness (DIDMOAD) caused by mutations in a novel gene (wolframin) coding for a predicted transmembrane protein. Hum Mol Genet 7(13):2021–2028.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/7.13.2021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eiberg H, Hansen L, Kjer B et al (2006) Autosomal dominant optic atrophy associated with hearing impairment and impaired glucose regulation caused by a missense mutation in the WFS1 gene. J Med Genet 43(5):435–440.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2005.034892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Franco E, Flanagan SE, Yagi T et al (2017) Dominant ER stress-inducing WFS1 mutations underlie a genetic syndrome of neonatal/infancy-onset diabetes, congenital sensorineural deafness, and congenital cataracts. Diabetes 66(7):2044–2053.  https://doi.org/10.2337/db16-1296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kawaguchi Y, Cooper B, Gannon M, Ray M, MacDonald RJ, Wright CV (2002) The role of the transcriptional regulator Ptf1a in converting intestinal to pancreatic progenitors. Nat Genet 32(1):128–134.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sellick GS, Barker KT, Stolte-Dijkstra I et al (2004) Mutations in PTF1A cause pancreatic and cerebellar agenesis. Nat Genet 36(12):1301–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia Zubkova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fatima Burumkulova
    • 2
  • Margarita Plechanova
    • 2
  • Vasily Petrukhin
    • 2
  • Vasily Petrov
    • 1
  • Evgeny Vasilyev
    • 1
  • Anton Panov
    • 2
  • Ekaterina Sorkina
    • 1
  • Victoria Ulyatovskaya
    • 2
  • Nina Makretskaya
    • 1
  • Anatoly Tiulpakov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department and Laboratory of Inherited Endocrine DisordersEndocrinology Research CentreMoscowRussian Federation
  2. 2.Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and GynecologyMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations