Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 79–89

Genes and osteoporosis

  • Toby Andrew
  • Alex J. MacGregor


Genes play an important role in the development of osteoporosis. Twin and family studies have consistently shown that peak bone mass, ultrasound properties of bone, skeletal geometry, bone turnover, and fracture are heritable. Yet, as we report in this paper, few candidate genes have been implicated without ambiguity. Osteoporosis is thought to be a polygenic disorder, determined by multiple genes and environmental risk factors, each with small to modest effect on bone mass and fracture. Here we argue that future success in finding genes is only possible with improved study design and the use of more rigorous analytic approaches that are now becoming available.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Anonymous: Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporos Int 1998, 8:S3–S80.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C: Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone 2001, 29:517–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart TL, Ralston SH: Role of genetic factors in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis. J Endocrinol 2000, 166:235–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hunter DJ, de Lange M, Andrew T, et al.: Genetic variation in bone mineral density and calcaneal ultrasound: a study of the influence of menopause using female twins. Osteoporos Int 2001, 12:406–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nguyen TV, Howard GM, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA: Bone mass, lean mass, and fat mass: same genes or same environments? Am J Epidemiol 1998, 147:3–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knapp KM, Andrew T, MacGregor AJ, et al.: An investigation of unique and shared gene effects on speed of sound and bone density using axial transmission quantitative ultrasound and DXA in twins. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:1525–1530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keen RW, Hart DJ, Arden NK, et al.: Family history of appendicular fracture and risk of osteoporosis: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 1999, 10:161–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kannus P, Palvanen M, Kaprio J, et al.: Genetic factors and osteoporotic fractures in elderly people: prospective 25 year follow up of a nationwide cohort of elderly Finnish twins. BMJ 1999, 319:1334–1337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andrew T, Antoniades L, Scurrah K, et al.: The risk of wrist fracture in women is heritable and is influenced by genes that are largely independent of those influencing bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 2004, In press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deng HW, Mahaney MC, Williams JT, et al.: Relevance of the genes for bone mass variation to susceptibility to osteoporotic fractures and its implications to gene search for complex human diseases. Genet Epidemiol 2002, 22:12–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deng HW, Chen WM, Recker S, et al.: Genetic determination of Colles’ fracture and differential bone mass in women with and without Colles’ fracture. J Bone Miner Res 2000, 15:1243–1252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nevitt MC, Cummings SR: Type of fall and risk of hip and wrist fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993, 41:1226–1234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rauch F, Glorieux FH: Osteogenesis imperfecta. Lancet 2004, 363:1377–1385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morishima A, Grumbach MM, Simpson ER, et al.: Aromatase deficiency in male and female siblings caused by a novel mutation and the physiological role of estrogens. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995, 80:3689–3698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Little RD, Carulli JP, Del Mastro RG, et al.: A mutation in the LDL receptor-related protein 5 gene results in the autosomal dominant high-bone-mass trait. Am J Hum Genet 2002, 70:11–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gueguen R, Jouanny P, Guillemin F, et al.: Segregation analysis and variance components analysis of bone mineral density in healthy families. J Bone Miner Res 1995, 10:2017–2022.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Livshits G, Karasik D, Pavlovsky O, Kobyliansky E: Segregation analysis reveals a major gene effect in compact and cancellous bone mineral density in 2 populations. Hum Biol 1999, 71:155–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teitelbaum SL, Ross FP: Genetic regulation of osteoclast development and function. Nat Rev Genet 2003, 4:638–649. ellent overview of recent achievements in cell and molecular biology investigating the genetic basis to osteoclastogenesis and bone turnover.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen TV, Blangero J, Eisman JA: Genetic epidemiological approaches to the search for osteoporosis genes. J Bone Miner Res 2000, 15:392–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doerge RW: Mapping and analysis of quantitative trait loci in experimental populations. Nat Rev Genet 2002, 3:43–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klein RF, Mitchell SR, Phillips TJ, et al.: Quantitative trait loci affecting peak bone mineral density in mice. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:1648–1656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mackay TF: The genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Annu Rev Genet 2001, 35:303–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Terwilliger JD, Goring HH: Gene mapping in the 20th and 21st centuries: statistical methods, data analysis, and experimental design. Hum Biol 2000, 72:63–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lander E, Kruglyak L: Genetic dissection of complex traits: guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage studies. Nat Genet 1995, 11:241–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Terwilliger JD: Linkage analysis, model based. Encyclopaedia of Biostatistics. Edited by Armitage P, Colton T. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons; 1998:2279–2291.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kruglyak L: Prospects for whole-genome linkage disequilibrium mapping of common disease genes. Nat Genet 1999, 22:139–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kruglyak L: What is significant in whole-genome linkage disequilibrium studies? Am J Hum Genet 1997, 61:810–812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pritchard JK: Are rare variants responsible for susceptibility to complex diseases? Am J Hum Genet 2001, 69:124–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maniatis N, Collins A, Gibson J, et al.: Positional cloning by linkage disequilibrium. Am J Hum Genet 2004, 74:846–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cardon LR, Bell JI: Association study designs for complex diseases. Nat Rev Genet 2001, 2:91–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Risch N, Merikangas K: The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases. Science 1996, 273:1516–1517. This influential paper, calculations are presented for a simple single disease model to demonstrate that in principle tests of association are more powerful than linkage. Unfortunately the paper is sometimes mistakenly interpreted to mean that singletons rather than family data should be used for tests of association, when in fact the same paper shows that joint linkage and association analyses (using affected sib pairs) substantially improves power.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reich DE, Lander ES: On the allelic spectrum of human disease. Trends Genet 2001, 17:502–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Terwilliger JD, Haghighi F, Hiekkalinna TS, Goring HH: A biased assessment of the use of SNPs in human complex traits. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2002, 12:726–734. Introduction and overview of LD mapping and outstanding problems (along with references therein). Explains the difference between the penetrance and detectance of a gene, the arbitrary nature of "blocks" of LD, the Common Disease Common Variant hypothesis informing the HapMap project and overestimation of effect size for newly identified loci.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goring HH, Terwilliger JD: Linkage analysis in the presence of errors IV: joint pseudomarker analysis of linkage and/or linkage disequilibrium on a mixture of pedigrees and singletons when the mode of inheritance cannot be accurately specified. Am J Hum Genet 2000, 66:1310–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carlson CS, Eberle MA, Kruglyak L, Nickerson DA: Mapping complex disease loci in whole-genome association studies. Nature 2004, 429:446–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldstein DB, Ahmadi KR, Weale ME, Wood NW: Genome scans and candidate gene approaches in the study of common diseases and variable drug responses. Trends Genet 2003, 19:615–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goldstein DB: Pharmacogenetics in the laboratory and the clinic. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:553–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reich DE, Cargill M, Bolk S, et al.: Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature 2001, 411:199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maniatis N, Collins A, Xu CF, et al.: The first linkage disequilibrium (LD) maps: delineation of hot and cold blocks by diplotype analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99:2228–2233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    The International HapMap Project. Nature 2003, 426:789–796.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chapman JM, Cooper JD, Todd JA, Clayton DG: Detecting disease associations due to linkage disequilibrium using haplotype tags: a class of tests and the determinants of statistical power. Hum Hered 2003, 56:18–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weale ME, Depondt C, Macdonald SJ, et al.: Selection and evaluation of tagging SNPs in the neuronal-sodium-channel gene SCN1A: implications for linkage-disequilibrium gene mapping. Am J Hum Genet 2003, 73:551–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morris AP, Whittaker JC, Balding DJ: Little loss of information due to unknown phase for fine-scale linkage-disequilibrium mapping with single-nucleotide-polymorphism genotype data. Am J Hum Genet 2004, 74:945–953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McVean GA, Myers SR, Hunt S, et al.: The fine-scale structure of recombination rate variation in the human genome. Science 2004, 304:581–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu YZ, Liu YJ, Recker RR, Deng HW: Molecular studies of identification of genes for osteoporosis: the 2002 update. J Endocrinol 2003, 177:147–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thakkinstian A, D’Este C, Eisman J, et al.: Meta-analysis of molecular association studies: vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and BMD as a case study. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:419–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cooper GS, Umbach DM: Are vitamin D receptor polymorphisms associated with bone mineral density? A meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:1841–1849.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mann V, Ralston SH: Meta-analysis of COL1A1 Sp1 polymorphism in relation to bone mineral density and osteoporotic fracture. Bone 2003, 32:711–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Efstathiadou Z, Tsatsoulis A, Ioannidis JP: Association of collagen Ialpha 1 Sp1 polymorphism with the risk of prevalent fractures: a meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1586–1592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ioannidis JP, Stavrou I, Trikalinos TA, et al.: Association of polymorphisms of the estrogen receptor alpha gene with bone mineral density and fracture risk in women: a metaanalysis. J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:2048–2060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Meurs JB, Schuit SC, Weel AE, et al.: Association of 5′ estrogen receptor alpha gene polymorphisms with bone mineral density, vertebral bone area and fracture risk. Hum Mol Genet 2003, 12:1745–1754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Korach KS: Insights from the study of animals lacking functional estrogen receptor. Science 1994, 266:1524–1527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rizzoli R, Bonjour JP, Ferrari SL: Osteoporosis, genetics, and hormones. J Mol Endocrinol 2001, 26:79–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lohmueller KE, Pearce CL, Pike M, et al.: Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease. Nat Genet 2003, 33:177–182. In a meta-analysis of 301 published studies covering 25 different reported candidate gene associations Lohmueller et al. concluded there were an excess of replications that could not reasonably be explained by publication bias (except for 3 studies) and that most replications were concentrated among 11 of the 25 associations.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gong Y, Slee RB, Fukai N, et al.: LDL receptor-related protein 5 (LRP5) affects bone accrual and eye development. Cell 2001, 107:513–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Van Hul E, Gram J, Bollerslev J, et al.: Localization of the gene causing autosomal dominant osteopetrosis type I to chromosome 11q12-13. J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:1111–1117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Boyden LM, Mao J, Belsky J, et al.: High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:1513–1521.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Van Wesenbeeck L, Cleiren E, Gram J, et al.: Six novel missense mutations in the LDL receptor-related protein 5 (LRP5) gene in different conditions with an increased bone density. Am J Hum Genet 2003, 72:763–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Carn G, Koller DL, Peacock M, et al.: Sibling pair linkage and association studies between peak bone mineral density and the gene locus for the osteoclast-specific subunit (OC116) of the vacuolar proton pump on chromosome 11p12-13. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002, 87:3819–3824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Livshits G, Trofimov S, Malkin I, Kobyliansky E: Transmission disequilibrium test for hand bone mineral density and 11q12-13 chromosomal segment. Osteoporos Int 2002, 13:461–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Koller DL, Rodriguez LA, Christian JC, et al.: Linkage of a QTL contributing to normal variation in bone mineral density to chromosome 11q12-13. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:1903–1908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Perola M, Ohman M, Hiekkalinna T, et al.: Quantitative-trait-locus analysis of body-mass index and of stature, by combined analysis of genome scans of five Finnish study groups. Am J Hum Genet 2001, 69:117–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hirschhorn JN, Lindgren CM, Daly MJ, et al.: Genomewide linkage analysis of stature in multiple populations reveals several regions with evidence of linkage to adult height. Am J Hum Genet 2001, 69:106–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kato M, Patel MS, Levasseur R, et al.: Cbfa1-independent decrease in osteoblast proliferation, osteopenia, and persistent embryonic eye vascularization in mice deficient in Lrp5, a Wnt coreceptor. J Cell Biol 2002, 157:303–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Caverzasio J: [Wnt/LRP5, a new regulation osteoblastic pathway involved in reaching peak bone masses]. Rev Med Suisse Romande 2004, 124:81–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    He X, Semenov M, Tamai K, Zeng X: LDL receptor-related proteins 5 and 6 in Wnt/beta-catenin signaling: arrows point the way. Development 2004, 131:1663–1677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ferrari SL, Deutsch S, Choudhury U, et al.: Polymorphisms in the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 (LRP5) gene are associated with variation in vertebral bone mass, vertebral bone size, and stature in whites. Am J Hum Genet 2004, 74:866–875. This successful study illustrates the importance of gene effect size and a more systematic candidate gene approach to association studies in which the LD of a region is assessed, as part of the criteria for selecting informative polymorphisms to test.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mizuguchi T, Furuta I, Watanabe Y, et al.: LRP5, low-densitylipoprotein-receptor-related protein 5, is a determinant for bone mineral density. J Hum Genet 2004, 49:80–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    de Jong DS, Vaes BL, Dechering KJ, et al.: Identification of novel regulators associated with early-phase osteoblast differentiation. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:947–958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Clancy BM, Johnson JD, Lambert AJ, et al.: A gene expression profile for endochondral bone formation: oligonucleotide microarrays establish novel connections between known genes and BMP-2-induced bone formation in mouse quadriceps. Bone 2003, 33:46–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Maeda T, Matsunuma A, Kurahashi I, et al.: Induction of osteoblast differentiation indices by statins in MC3T3-E1 cells. J Cell Biochem 2004, 92:458–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mundy G, Garrett R, Harris S, et al.: Stimulation of bone formation in vitro and in rodents by statins. Science 1999, 286:1946–1949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rawadi G, Vayssiere B, Dunn F, et al.: BMP-2 controls alkaline phosphatase expression and osteoblast mineralization by a Wnt autocrine loop. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:1842–1853.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Styrkarsdottir U, Cazier JB, Kong A, et al.: Linkage of osteoporosis to chromosome 20p12 and association to BMP2. PLoS Biol 2003, 1:E69. Encouraging news for complex trait researchers that can be added to a small but growing list of novel genes, discovered using a strategy of linkage mapping followed-up by investigation of likely candidate genes in the region.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bolon B, Carter C, Daris M, et al.: Adenoviral delivery of osteoprotegerin ameliorates bone resorption in a mouse ovariectomy model of osteoporosis. Mol Ther 2001, 3:197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kostenuik PJ, Bolon B, Morony S, et al.: Gene therapy with human recombinant osteoprotegerin reverses established osteopenia in ovariectomized mice. Bone 2004, 34:656–664.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bucay N, Sarosi I, Dunstan CR, et al.: Osteoprotegerin-deficient mice develop early onset osteoporosis and arterial calcification. Genes Dev 1998, 12:1260–1268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Terwilliger J, Goring HH, Magnusson P, Lee J: Study design for genetic epidemiology and gene mapping: the Korean Diaspora Project. Life Science Research 2002, 6:95–115 Lucid and critical review of genetic epidemiologic study design and why the biologic consideration of small functional variant effects is just as important as a careful selection strategy for genetic markers in positional cloning, yet is often overlooked. While the latter is ultimately driven by technologic considerations (the economy of dense genetic marker sets), the former can only be optimally addressed by the appropriate selection of highly ascertained samples. As a result of this (and multiple testing involved in positional cloning), the same study cannot be used to detect and estimate the effect size of de novo functional polymorphisms. This article is essential reading for novice and expert alike.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pritchard JK, Cox NJ: The allelic architecture of human disease genes: common disease-common variant… or not? Hum Mol Genet 2002, 11:2417–2423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Terwilliger JD, Weiss KM: Linkage disequilibrium mapping of complex disease: fantasy or reality? Curr Opin Biotechnol 1998, 9:578–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Pritchard JK, Rosenberg NA: Use of unlinked genetic markers to detect population stratification in association studies. Am J Hum Genet 1999, 65:220–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Reich DE, Goldstein DB: Detecting association in a casecontrol study while correcting for population stratification. Genet Epidemiol 2001, 20:4–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Marchini J, Cardon LR, Phillips MS, Donnelly P: The effects of human population structure on large genetic association studies. Nat Genet 2004, 36:512–517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Satten GA, Flanders WD, Yang Q: Accounting for unmeasured population substructure in case-control studies of genetic association using a novel latent-class model. Am J Hum Genet 2001, 68:466–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Botstein D, Risch N: Discovering genotypes underlying human phenotypes: past successes for mendelian disease, future approaches for complex disease. Nat Genet 2003, 33(Suppl):228–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Giguere Y, Rousseau F: The genetics of osteoporosis: ‘complexities and difficulties’. Clin Genet 2000, 57:161–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cusack S, Cashman KD: Impact of genetic variation on metabolic response of bone to diet. Proc Nutr Soc 2003, 62:901–912.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Deng HW, Li J, Li JL, et al.: Change of bone mass in postmenopausal Caucasian women with and without hormone replacement therapy is associated with vitamin D receptor and estrogen receptor genotypes. Hum Genet 1998, 103:576–585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Eisman JA: Genetics of osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 1999, 20:788–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ferrari S, Rizzoli R, Bonjour JP: Genetic aspects of osteoporosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1999, 11:294–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Fulker DW, Cherny SS, Sham PC, Hewitt JK: Combined linkage and association sib-pair analysis for quantitative traits. Am J Hum Genet 1999, 64:259–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Purcell S, Cherny SS, Sham PC: Genetic power calculator: design of linkage and association genetic mapping studies of complex traits. Bioinformatics 2003, 19:149–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Grant SF, Reid DM, Blake G, et al.: Reduced bone density and osteoporosis associated with a polymorphic Sp1 binding site in the collagen type I alpha 1 gene. Nat Genet 1996, 14:203–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gong G, Stern HS, Cheng SC, et al.: The association of bone mineral density with vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms. Osteoporos Int 1999, 9:55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Thakkinstian A, D’Este C, Attia J: Haplotype analysis of VDR gene polymorphisms: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2004, In press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toby Andrew
    • 1
  • Alex J. MacGregor
  1. 1.Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology Unit, St. Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations