Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 261–272 | Cite as

An Integrated Approach to Defining Genetic and Environmental Determinants for Major Clinical Outcomes Involving Vitamin D

  • Antonio J. Berlanga-Taylor
  • Julian C. Knight
Open Access
Current Opinion


There is substantial genetic and epidemiological evidence implicating vitamin D in the pathogenesis of many common diseases. A number of studies have sought to define an association for disease with sequence variation in the VDR gene, encoding the ligand-activated nuclear hormone receptor for vitamin D. The results of such studies have been difficult to replicate and are likely to need to account for specific environmental exposures. Here, we review recent work that has begun to study the interactions between VDR gene polymorphisms, vitamin D blood levels, and complex disease susceptibility, notably in the context of major clinical outcomes. We highlight the challenges moving forward in this area and its importance for effective clinical translation of current research.


ApaI FokI Polymorphism Major Clinical Outcome Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium Determine Disease Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with a number of diseases but causality and molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone classically known for its function in calcium metabolism and bone physiology with the first descriptions of rickets made in the 1600s by Whistler and Glisson [1]. The broader role of vitamin D in health and disease is highlighted by studies demonstrating its importance in inflammatory conditions and the adaptive and innate immune response. Epidemiological data, animal models, and genetic studies provide evidence of a role for vitamin D in diseases from cardiovascular disease (CVD) to type 1 diabetes mellitus and multiple sclerosis (MS) [2, 3, 4, 5]. A recent study indicates that VDR polymorphisms may interact with circulating levels of vitamin D (25(OH)D) in determining major clinical outcomes, including a composite outcome of incident hip fracture, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, and mortality [6]. Here, we focus on this recent evidence, review meta-analysis studies of VDR polymorphisms and disease, and highlight aspects relevant for future research.

1.1 Sources and Metabolism of Vitamin D

Humans obtain vitamin D from skin exposure to ultraviolet B radiation (UVR) or through dietary intake. The metabolism is complex with many intermediate steps. UVR converts 7-dehydrocholesterol to pre-vitamin D3, which is immediately transformed through a heat-dependent process to vitamin D3 [7, 8]. Vitamin D3 (from UVR exposure) or D2 (dietary) is transported by chylomicrons and stored in adipocytes or transported to other tissues by the vitamin D-binding protein (GC) [8, 9]. Vitamin D-25-hydroxylase (CYP2R1) metabolizes vitamin D to 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), the form most commonly measured and used to determine vitamin D status in an individual [10, 11]. The active form of vitamin D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D), is obtained by conversion of 25(OH)D by 25-hydroxyvitamin D-1α-hydroxylase (1-OHase; CYP27B1). CYP2R1 and CYP27B1 are expressed at high levels in the liver and kidney, respectively, although they are found in multiple tissues [10]. 1,25(OH)2D is catabolized by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D 24-hydroxylase (CYP24A1) to form calcitroic acid and is excreted in bile [10].

The actions of vitamin D are largely mediated through the vitamin D receptor (VDR). VDR is ligand activated by 1,25(OH)2D and as a heterodimer with the retinoid-X receptor (RXR) travels to the nucleus to bind vitamin D response elements. DNA-bound 1,25(OH)2D-VDR-RXR complexes regulate genome-wide transcriptional expression through incompletely understood mechanisms [12].

Although the most important source for vitamin D is exposure to sunlight, dietary supplementation is important for individuals at risk of deficiency. This is increasingly true for populations away from the equator, individuals with dark skin, those who use excessive sunscreen, and those who do not expose their skin to sunlight for religious or lifestyle reasons. As such, adequate guidelines for sun exposure and vitamin D supplementation remain necessary, particularly for at-risk groups.

1.2 Genetic Determinants of Plasma Vitamin D Levels

The circulating form of vitamin D, 25(OH)D, is the most commonly measured and used form to describe an individual’s vitamin D status [9]. The definition of normal levels is contentious, particularly for non-skeletal functions. A recent report from the Institute of Medicine in the USA highlighted the need for rigorous evidence to be collected for non-classic effects of vitamin D and recommended plasma levels to be 50–150 nmol/L [13].

Recent studies have indicated that heritability of 25(OH)D in plasma can be high. It is estimated that ~25 % of inter-individual variability can be attributed to season of measurement, latitude, or intake [14]. A study in male monozygotic twins showed significant seasonal variation with a 15 nmol/L lower value during the winter than during the summer. It was estimated that 70 % of the variation during winter was explained by genetic factors, though in the summer, levels did not have a discernible heritable component [15]. Karohl and colleagues (2010) also confirmed a previous finding of significantly higher intra-class correlation between monozygotic twins compared with dizygotic twins [16].

Two recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) found that common variants present in CYP2R1, 7-DHCR, CYP24A1, and in the vitamin D binding protein (GC, DBP), were associated with 25(OH)D blood levels [14]. These genetic markers and genotype combinations were associated with an increased risk of vitamin D insufficiency (<75 nmol/L), deficiency (<50 nmol/L), and severe deficiency (<20 nmol/L) [14, 17]. Interestingly, rs2282679 within the GC gene was also significantly associated with concentrations of GC protein with the minor allele associated with lower levels (Table 1) [14].
Table 1

Single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with vitamin D plasma levels by genome-wide association studies


Reported gene(s)

Strongest SNP

Risk allele frequency

P value

OR (P value)*

Ahn et al. [17]





1.83 (2.50E−8)





0.89 (0.21)





1.18 (0.11)

Wang et al. [14]





1.63 (3.5E−50)





1.21 (4.1E−10)





1.21 (9.4E−11)

SNP single nucleotide polymorphism, OR odds ratio

* Association of one risk allele with <25 nmol/L (Ahn et al.) and <75 nmol/L (Wang et al.)

1.3 The Vitamin D Receptor

The discovery of VDR in the jawless primitive fish (lamprey) led to the conclusion that the vitamin D system originated before the development of calcified structures [18]. Ultraviolet irradiation in invertebrates, fungi, and plants generates vitamin D2 and thus vitamin D may have developed as a system to help prevent damage to nucleic acids and proteins [19]. VDR’s structural similarity to other nuclear receptors involved in bile acid and xenobiotic receptors raises the possibility that its initial importance related to detoxification and later evolved to calcium homeostasis and immunity [1]. The VDR gene is conserved across species including non-human primates, rodents, birds, and flies and it seems likely that it has been positively selected in humans [20]. It is thought that skin color evolved to address vitamin D synthesis [21]. Vitamin D deficiency leading to disorders such as rickets-induced pelvic fractures can have fatal consequences and may have driven selection to some extent [22].

VDR is found in the nucleus as a homodimer in the absence of 1,25(OH)2D3. The VDR protein can bind to the three isoforms of RXR and acquires the active conformation when bound to 1,25(OH)2D3. More than 900 allelic variants have been described at the VDR locus (1000 Genomes Browser v. 3; Homo sapiens: GRCh37.p11, Chr 12 (NC_000012.11): 48.23–48.29 M). A small number of these have been studied with several disease associations reported. Importantly, loss-of-function mutations in the VDR gene cause hereditary vitamin D-resistant rickets type II [23, 24]. ApaI [rs7975232], BsmI [rs1544410], FokI [rs10735810], and TaqI [rs731236]) are single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in VDR that have been widely studied in relation to common disease, initially using restriction enzyme assays from which the nomenclature derives from (Fig. 1) [25, 26, 27]. Alleles identified by restriction sites are noted in upper (absence) and lower (presence) case respectively (e.g., ‘F’ or ‘f’ for FokI).
Fig. 1

The human vitamin D receptor gene showing polymorphisms associated with disease. VDR spans 105 kb at chromosome 12q13.11. Studies independently investigating hip fracture, type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), MI, cancer, and other diseases such as MS, tuberculosis and type 1 diabetes have reported associations with VDR gene polymorphisms. dbSNP (rs) identifiers and nomenclature derived from restriction enzyme cleavage sites are shown in the context of the region chr12:46,524,238–46,525,237 on the negative strand (UCSC release hg18, March 2006). Exons marked 1f1c are largely non-coding and are indicated by open bars. Black bars indicate coding exons 2–9 with transcriptional start sites marked by arrows. Figure reproduced with permission from [26]

1.4 Vitamin D Blood Levels, VDR Polymorphisms, and Major Clinical Outcomes

It is possible that genotypic effects are only evident under particular environmental contexts. A recent study showed that the combination of low circulating 25(OH)D levels and genotype increases disease risk for multiple outcomes [6]. Levin et al. [6] undertook a candidate gene approach to test whether common polymorphisms in vitamin D metabolism genes (VDR, CYP27B1, CYP24A1, GC, LRP2, and CUBN) interacted with circulating 25(OH)D and were associated with disease [6]. A composite outcome of incident hip fracture, MI, cancer, and mortality after a follow-up of 11 years in the discovery cohort was used. Independent replication was done using three additional cohorts from different populations with follow-ups of at least 7 years. The discovery cohort identified interactions between five SNPs and low circulating 25(OH)D levels. One SNP implicating VDR was replicated independently and low circulating 25(OH)D levels were associated with increased risk of the composite outcome with allelic dosage. Individuals with low circulating 25(OH)D levels and one minor allele at rs7968585 had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.40 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.12–1.74) for the composite outcome while individuals with two alleles had a HR of 1.82 (95 % CI 1.31–2.54). Homozygous individuals for the major allele at rs7968585 showed no association.

This study is of special interest given the number of reported associations of vitamin D deficiency with disease. The magnitude and direction of the risks conferred by genetic variants were relatively consistent across populations and individual disease outcomes. However, heterogeneity was significant in the meta-analysis for two variants, and borderline non-significant for a third. Using a composite outcome may add statistical power but the biological reasoning is not immediately evident. Although vitamin D has many actions it would seem unlikely that it has a causal effect in multiple diseases with diverse pathophysiological mechanisms. The study by Levin et al. [6] is, to our knowledge, one of the first to use an analysis based on composite outcomes for VDR polymorphisms, disease association, and environmental interaction. Further studies assessing larger independent cohorts and interrogating homogenous outcomes will be required to confirm and refine these findings. Here, we set the results in a broader context by first highlighting recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses for each condition to contextualize these findings.

1.5 Genetic Evidence of Association Involving the Vitamin D Receptor

1.5.1 Hip Fracture

Candidate gene studies testing the association of VDR polymorphisms and fracture have had mixed results. A meta-analysis suggested that there is a statistically significant association between BsmI and fracture risk [28]. By contrast TaqI, associated in the Levin et al. study, and other variants were not significant.

1.5.2 Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Studies showing an association between VDR polymorphisms and susceptibility to type 2 diabetes have been inconsistent. A recent meta-analysis to analyse the association of four well-studied VDR polymorphisms (FokI, BsmI, ApaI, and TaqI) with type 2 diabetes susceptibility found that the FokI polymorphism, but not TaqI or others, was significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in an Asian population [29]. None of the polymorphisms studied had significant associations in other populations.

A recent trial investigated the effect of VDR FokI polymorphism and vitamin D intake on glycemic status, lipid profiles, and inflammatory biomarkers in 140 diabetic subjects. It found that FokI (FF vs. ff) is associated with increased levels of plasma 25(OH)D and decreased levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin (IL)-6 following 12 weeks of 1,000 IU per day [30]. The study concluded that individuals with the FF genotype, when compared with those with ff, had the largest increases in circulating 25(OH)D levels, as well as the largest decrements in CRP and IL-6. Findings from other studies, such as an inverse association between 1,25(OH)2D levels and chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes that was significantly modified by FokI [31], support the notion that vitamin D and/or polymorphisms in the VDR may be important in diabetic physiopathology.

1.5.3 Rheumatoid Arthritis

A meta-analysis to determine the association between VDR polymorphisms (BsmI, TaqI, FokI, and ApaI) and RA susceptibility found that the FokI polymorphism was significantly associated in Europeans [32]. More recent studies have found several VDR polymorphisms associated with RA in different populations including South Asians and Caucasians [33], Tunisians [34], and Egyptians [35]. These studies have had small sample sizes with 200 or fewer cases each and replication is needed.

1.5.4 Myocardial Infarction

Few studies have investigated the role of VDR polymorphisms in MI susceptibility, although many observational studies have shown an association between low 25(OH)D levels and CVD. In patients aged <65 years, but not older individuals, there is evidence that VDR BsmI significantly associates with the presence of MI [36]. However, a new polymorphism in the binding site of the primers used for BsmI restriction polymorphism identification, causing failure of polymerase chain reaction amplification with a loss of the b allele in heterozygotes, may have confounded this and other studies [37].

1.5.5 Cancer

Multiple studies have associated VDR polymorphisms with cancer risk and progression, particularly for susceptibility to lung [38] and ovarian cancers [39]. Results have generally been mixed and meta-analyses have suggested positive results only for particular polymorphisms in certain populations. Significant associations have been reported in breast cancer (FokI, BsmI, TaqI, ApaI, poly (A)), prostate (FokI, BsmI, TaqI, poly (A)), skin (FokI, BsmI, A-1210), colorectal (FokI, BsmI), ovary (FokI, ApaI), and bladder (FokI) cancers, and in renal cell carcinoma (TaqI, ApaI) [40].

Associations were strongest for breast (BsmI, FokI) and prostate (FokI) cancers and malignant melanoma (FokI) on systematic review [40]. However, an updated meta-analysis for prostate cancer risk showed an association in Asian populations for TaqI [41], but FokI and BsmI in diverse populations showed no significant associations [42]. Lack of association has also been reported in colorectal cancer outcomes [43]. Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer risk studies showed increased risk associated with BsmI polymorphisms, but not Cdx-2, FokI, ApaI, or TaqI, in Caucasians [44]. Breast cancer association studies have also shown mixed results. A recent meta-analysis showed that FokI is associated with breast cancer risk in diverse populations while ApaI may be associated with Asian populations [45]. Other polymorphisms, such as VDR poly(A), do not appear to be associated [46]. The VDR Cdx2 polymorphism was found to be significantly associated with breast cancer susceptibility in Africans but not in Caucasians [47].

1.5.6 Genome-Wide Association Studies and Vitamin D

Several vitamin D metabolism genes have been implicated in GWAS of immunulogic, cancer, and inflammatory traits (Table 2). However, increased susceptibility of hip fracture, type 2 diabetes, RA, MI, and cancer other than lung has not been observed in association with SNPs in vitamin D metabolism genes. In particular, rs7968585, associated with these major clinical outcomes by Levin and colleagues [6], or variants in high linkage disequilibrium (rs10783215, rs7965281, rs4760733; r 2 > 0.9), have not been associated by GWAS. Differences in populations studied and criteria for phenotypic characterization among other issues may be responsible for this lack of replication. Large-scale studies in homogeneous populations with carefully selected endpoints are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Table 2

Genome-wide association studies implicating vitamin D metabolism genes

Implicated vitamin D gene

Name (function)

Associated trait

Strongest SNP-risk allele

P value


95 % CI



Vitamin D receptor

Inflammatory bowel disease







25-hydroxyvitamin D3 1-alpha-hydroxylase

Multiple sclerosis







1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 24-hydroxylase, mitochondrial

Atopic dermatitis






Multiple sclerosis






Lung cancer







Vitamin D binding protein

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease histology (other)






Metabolite levels






Vitamin D levels






Vitamin D insufficiency






Vitamin D levels




[0.32–0.44] unit decrease



Cubilin*, renal and intestinal endocytic receptor involved in the absorption of various protein ligands including GC

Urinary albumin excretion






MRI atrophy measures






Folate pathway vitamin levels




[0.030–0.070] unit decrease


Folate pathway vitamin levels




[7.71–35.27] pg/mL decrease


Quantitative traits







Megalin**, also an endocytic receptor, primarily found in kidney, which mediates reabsorption and metabolism of glomerular-filtered substances including uptake of GC

Anorexia nervosa






Urate levels




[0.053–0.111] unit decrease



Vitamin D 25-hydroxylase

Vitamin D insufficiency






Vitamin D levels




[0.15–0.35] unit increase



7-dehydrocholesterol (7DHC) reductase, catalyses conversion of 7DHC to cholesterol, thereby removing substrate availability for vitamin D synthesis

Vitamin D insufficiency






Vitamin D levels




[0.12–0.24] unit decrease


SNP single nucleotide polymorphism, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NR not reported

Data from, accessed December, 27, 2013 except [52]

* Also known as intrinsic factor-cobalamin receptor

** Also known as low-density lipoprotein-related protein 2

1.6 Epidemiological Evidence Involving Mortality, Vitamin D Levels, and Supplementation

A reverse J-shaped association between serum 25(OH)D levels and all-cause mortality was confirmed in a large, prospective, population-based study [61]. Adjusted relative risk (RR) with 95 % CI for all levels <60 nmol/L were significantly above 1 when compared with the reference group (75–99 nmol/L). Complementing this, a meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation involving nearly 75,000 individuals from 32 trials concluded that vitamin D3 appears to decrease mortality from any cause (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.91–0.98), although mainly in elderly institutionalized women [62].

1.6.1 Autoimmune Diseases

Many studies have investigated the relationship between vitamin D levels, the risk of developing autoimmune diseases (AID), and if vitamin D supplements can modify disease course. A recent meta-analysis identified 219 articles with such outcomes and found that vitamin D deficiency (<75 nmol/L) is highly prevalent in both healthy and diseased individuals and that severe deficiency (<25 nmol/L) is associated with increased symptomatology. However, among interventional studies, it was found that only in type 1 diabetes does vitamin D supplementation reduce the risk of susceptibility with a dose-response effect [63].

1.6.2 Hip Fracture

Several trials have been carried out to assess the value of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of hip fractures. A recent participant-level meta-analysis using 11 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials of oral vitamin D supplementation, with or without calcium, compared with placebo or calcium alone in those aged older than 65 years, concluded that supplementation with ≥800 IU daily appeared of benefit in the prevention of hip and non-vertebral fracture (HR, 0.70; 95 % CI 0.58–0.86, P value <0.001; actual intake analysis for hip fracture) [64].

1.6.3 Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Many observational studies and a number of clinical trials have been carried out to determine the relationship of vitamin D blood levels and supplementation with type 2 diabetes and results remain inconclusive. Khan and colleagues recently reported a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies reporting association of circulating or dietary vitamin D levels with incident type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance. They found significant heterogeneity across studies and evidence of publication bias but concluded that vitamin D status at baseline in healthy adults is inversely associated with increased susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (RR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.71–0.92) and metabolic syndrome (RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.80–0.92) [65].

A further systematic review and meta-analysis that included 15 trials assessed the effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycemic control and insulin resistance [66]. It found no significant improvement in fasting glucose, HbA(1c), or insulin resistance in those treated with vitamin D compared with placebo. Larger trials in homogeneous populations are needed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is beneficial in glycemic control, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes prevention.

1.6.4 Rheumatoid Arthritis

Several studies have investigated the association between vitamin D intake and RA susceptibility as well as 25(OH)D levels and RA activity. A recent meta-analysis summarized these studies and found an association between total vitamin D intake and RA incidence without between-study heterogeneity. Individuals had a 24.2 % lower risk of developing RA when comparing highest vs. lowest vitamin D intake groups. Vitamin D levels were also inversely associated with RA activity [67].

Studies of vitamin D supplementation have not shown benefit so far in RA. Vitamin D supplementation of 800 IU per day appears ineffective in RA patients [68]. A large study to determine whether calcium plus vitamin D supplementation affects incidence of RA was carried out in the Women’s Health Initiative. More than 36,000 women were randomized to 1,000 mg calcium carbonate plus 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily or to placebo. In intention-to-treat analyses, no differences were observed in RA incidence between treatment groups. Trials assessing higher doses are required before conclusions can be reached [69].

1.6.5 Myocardial Infarction

Multiple studies have shown a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients with CVD and an association of vitamin D deficiency with higher mortality [70, 71]. Vitamin D deficiency is also associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, MI, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes (reviewed in [72]). A recent prospective evaluation in multi-ethnic populations free of known CVD at baseline showed that white or Chinese, but not black or Hispanic, individuals with low circulating 25(OH)D levels were at significantly increased risk of MI, angina, cardiac arrest, or death from CVD [73]. Severe vitamin D deficiency in patients with acute coronary syndromes appears to be significantly and independently associated with in-hospital death [74].

Initial clinical trials to test whether supplementation with vitamin D is beneficial in patients with CVD have shown benefit [70]. Both low circulating 25(OH)D levels and high plasma renin activity are associated independently with poor prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure [75, 76]. A recent open-label, blinded, endpoint, phase II trial in cardiac heart failure patients showed that vitamin D3 supplementation lowers plasma renin activity using 2,000 IU daily [77]. A large randomized trial in healthy postmenopausal women from the Women’s Health Initiative showed that calcium (500 mg) plus vitamin D (400 IU daily) supplementation neither increased nor decreased coronary risk [78].

Strong and independent associations of circulating 25(OH)D levels with cardiovascular mortality have been shown but causality and benefit from supplementation remain unresolved.

1.6.6 Cancer

In vitro and animal models show strong evidence of anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects in cancer cells following calcitriol stimulation [79]. Many observational studies have associated low circulating levels of 25(OH)D with cancer susceptibility, particularly for colorectal cancer [80]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies showed an inverse association of total cancer incidence with circulating 25(OH)D levels [81]. Total cancer mortality was also assessed but studies showed significant heterogeneity; however, other studies have not shown an association. The Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers did not show a link between higher levels of vitamin D and reduced risk of cancer [82]. Clinical trials have shown mixed results and further studies are needed [83, 84].

1.7 Low Levels of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Genotype in Major Clinical Disease Risk

The study by Levin et al. [6] showed an interaction between rs7968585 (implicating VDR) and low 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with increasing risk of the clinical composite outcome for individuals heterozygous and homozygous for the risk allele. It would seem reasonable to hypothesize that SNPs associated by GWAS with circulating 25(OH)D levels could serve as proxies, interact with VDR SNPs to determine disease risk, or be independently associated by GWAS with disease. GWAS have been carried out for these major disease outcomes and have not shown an association for the most highly significant SNPs associated with vitamin D levels (Table 2). Epistasis between SNPs found in or near vitamin D metabolism genes has been shown [14]. Wang et al. [14] combined the three confirmed variants and found that individuals with a genotype score in the highest quartile were at increased risk of having lower 25(OH)D circulating levels (<75 nmol/L and <50 nmol/L) compared with the lowest quartile. Integrating this information with disease phenotypes, as suggested by the approach used by Levin et al. [6], may reveal important insights and could help identify individuals at greater risk of disease susceptibility.

The Tromsø Study, a prospective assessment of more than 9,000 subjects in Norway, could not however support or exclude a causal relationship between SNPs associated with low 25(OH)D levels by GWAS and disease [85]. The study followed more than 9,000 individuals for 13 years with the endpoints MI, type 2 diabetes, cancer, death, or a randomly selected control group with genotyping for 17 SNPs related to serum 25(OH)D levels (those initially identified in [14, 17]). VDR variants were not included as these had not been consistently shown to affect circulating 25(OH)D levels. Few other studies have assessed interactions of this nature and more research is needed.

1.8 Future Studies Assessing Vitamin D–Gene Interactions in Disease

1.8.1 Study Design and Analytical Considerations

Advances in the determination of genetic risk are greatly improving our capacity to detect gene–environment interactions (GEI). Although a detailed discussion of the study of GEI is beyond the scope of this review, we will mention several important aspects. Achieving sufficient power and appropriate study design are particularly challenging. Four designs have traditionally been used: family based, case-control, cohort, and more recently, case-only [86, 87]. Obtaining sufficiently large samples sizes remains the biggest obstacle in all. Susceptibility to population stratification bias, recall bias, survivor bias, prospectively collected samples for biomarker measurement, and sample size are particularly relevant factors [88]. Analysis and interpretation, especially for genome-wide designs, are rapidly becoming bottlenecks as sample sizes and data sets increase.

Case-only designs, where differences in the prevalence of the exposure between genotype-positive vs. genotype-negative cases would indicate an interaction, have recently gained popularity as they require smaller sample sizes and bias does not appear to be common in practice [86]. Case-control studies in clinical settings for gene–drug interactions have also been performed recently. The first large randomized trials of the clinical utility of genotype-guided dosing for vitamin K antagonists disappointingly showed marginal or non-usefulness for initiation of anticoagulant therapy [89, 90, 91]. Although results were not encouraging, studies of this nature will likely be more common in the future as we gain a better understanding of GEI and their clinical relevance.

Mendelian randomization has served as a useful method to interrogate GEI such as in hypertension risk and alcohol intake [92] and incidence of coronary events and low-density lipoprotein levels [93]. More recently, large studies such as the National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium have provided examples of candidate gene and genome-wide GEI analysis in prostate cancer and steroid hormones including vitamin D [94, 95]. Contrary to experimental evidence, the study by Mondul et al. [94] found that variants related to lower levels of circulating 25(OH)D may actually be associated with a decreased risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

The study by Levin et al. [6] has several strengths and provides a useful starting point for discussion of study design in genetic association and 25(OH)D analysis. Replication of findings in different and independently recruited and ascertained populations greatly increases confidence by reducing the likelihood of false-positive results. Equally, independent analysis followed by meta-analysis provides more robust methodology. Stringent multiple testing correction is necessary. The use of a composite outcome may increase statistical power, although heterogeneity in phenotypic characterization across cohorts and likely underlying biologic differences in patho-physiology may counter this. Lifestyle factors, comorbidity, time from 25(OH)D status measurement, season of measurement, and body mass index need to be considered when analyzing disease associations involving circulating 25(OH)D levels.

Study outcomes and power must be clearly determined a priori to further avoid the likelihood of false-positive and false-negative results. Previous studies can aid in estimating effect size and sample sizes required. Initial recruitment of a homogeneous population, particularly in terms of genetic structure, is essential for successful genetic studies. Bias in reporting, level of diagnostic ascertainment, and known comorbidity are important factors that require careful consideration and attention when characterizing phenotypes for GWAS. The choice of platform to determine genotypes may need expert advice. For gene- or pathway-focused studies, analysis of published data, haplotype structure of the population of interest, and available functional evidence in a disease-relevant context would facilitate design and interpretation of results.

Finally, standardized methods of measurement of circulating 25(OH)D levels across individuals and cohorts can reduce artificial variation. Although 25(OH)D status is stable across extended periods of time, repeated measurements may be necessary. Despite intense debate, the report by the Institute of Medicine (USA) in 2011 [13] established thresholds for vitamin D levels that may aid comparisons across cohorts and diseases.

1.8.2 Future Clinical Applications: SNP Profiling for Identification and Treatment of At-Risk Individuals?

The number of studies associating low levels of circulating 25(OH)D with disease risk have raised calls for public health intervention. Should all individuals at particular latitudes be supplemented with vitamin D through diet? This question is far from trivial. Although proponents may eventually be proved right, conclusive evidence for the causal involvement and benefit from supplementation of vitamin D in non-classical vitamin D-associated diseases is still needed.

Interventions for individuals at greater risk could come sooner and may be more appropriate given the current evidence. Modification of lifestyle factors, while considering changes in risk for other diseases (i.e., increased sun exposure in fair-skinned individuals), and seasonal and dietary supplementation could be considered. Testing before treating, particularly in light of increased mortality at increased levels of circulating 25(OH)D [61], may be suitable in certain patient groups.

Identification of individuals at increased disease risk by genotype is a promising area. Evidence is currently insufficient to recommend this approach in vitamin D-related diseases but the study by Levin et al. [6] further raises this issue. Interestingly, Martineau et al. [96] showed in a randomized, controlled clinical trial in patients being treated for tuberculosis that vitamin D supplementation significantly decreased time to mycobacterium sputum clearance in individuals carrying rs731236 (TaqI [tt], recently merged with rs7968585, the variant identified by Levin et al. [6]).

2 Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Observational data clearly associate vitamin D with many diseases and initial molecular evidence of the involvement of vitamin D through the action of VDR exists for some of these [97]. A causal role for vitamin D, other than in bone disease, appears to be more likely in MS and type 1 diabetes. Strong evidence for other diseases is not yet available.

Candidate gene association studies have many advantages but have largely suffered from inconsistency and lack replication. GWAS is a powerful approach to identify disease-associated genetic variants and hundreds of phenotypes have now been catalogued. There has been a lack of association of VDR polymorphisms in GWAS although other genes important in vitamin D metabolism, such as CYP24A1 and CYP27B1, have been strongly implicated.

Benefit from vitamin D supplementation is yet to be systematically tested and future studies should address this through careful study design with a particular focus on at-risk individuals. Recent clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation have mostly used small numbers of individuals and have been underpowered showing inconsistent results.

Vitamin D–gene interactions are likely to be important in disease and require further study. VDR polymorphisms may play an important role in determining disease risk and further studies may need to take these variants, and those shown by GWAS to be important in determining circulating 25(OH)D levels, into careful consideration. Epistasis between variants that determine vitamin D blood levels and VDR SNPs may also be relevant and require investigation. Studies testing the interaction between variants associated with vitamin D blood levels, VDR polymorphisms, circulating 25(OH)D levels, and disease susceptibility may shed further insight into patho-physiological mechanisms and could serve to identify biomarkers. Genetic variant analysis as a means to identify patients at risk is a promising approach. However, it is premature to recommend genotyping VDR in a clinical setting and many more studies are needed before conclusive evidence can be reached. It seems likely that both common and rare variants in vitamin D metabolism genes play a role in disease. Further research addressing this question could yield additional insight that is clinically translatable.



The authors have received financial support for their work from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK (Grant 915/09 [A.J.B-T] and Grant 875/07 [J.C.K.]), the Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT, Mexico, Grant 211990 [A.J.B-T]), Wellcome Trust (Grants 074318 [J.C.K.], 075491/Z/04 [core facilities Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics]), the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant agreement no. 281824 (J.C.K.), the Medical Research Council (98082 [J.C.K]) and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.


  1. 1.
    Bouillon R, Bischoff-Ferrari H, Willett W. Vitamin D and health: perspectives from mice and man. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23(7):974–9. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.080420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adorini L, Penna G. Control of autoimmune diseases by the vitamin D endocrine system. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2008;4(8):404–12. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewison M. Antibacterial effects of vitamin D. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7(6):337–45. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2010.226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badenhoop K, Kahles H, Penna-Martinez M. Vitamin D, immune tolerance, and prevention of type 1 diabetes. Curr Diabetes Rep. 2012;12(6):635–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giovannoni G, Ebers G. Multiple sclerosis: the environment and causation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2007;20(3):261–8. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32815610c2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levin GP, Robinson-Cohen C, de Boer IH, Houston DK, Lohman K, Liu Y, et al. Genetic variants and associations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations with major clinical outcomes. JAMA. 2012;308(18):1898–905. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.17304.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aris RM, Merkel PA, Bachrach LK, Borowitz DS, Boyle MP, Elkin SL, et al. Guide to bone health and disease in cystic fibrosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(15613415):1888–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holick MF. Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(3):266–81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra070553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLuca HF. Overview of general physiologic features and functions of vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(6 Suppl):1689S–96S 80/6/1689S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horst RL, Reinhardt TA, Reddy GS. Vitamin D metabolism. In: Feldman D, Pike JW, Glorieux FH, editors. Vitamin D, vol I, 2nd ed. London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005. p. 15–36.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsu F, Kent WJ, Clawson H, Kuhn RM, Diekhans M, Haussler D. The UCSC known genes. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(16500937):1036–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pike JW, Meyer MB. The vitamin D receptor: new paradigms for the regulation of gene expression by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3). Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2010;39(20511050):255–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross AC, Manson JE, Abrams SA, Aloia JF, Brannon PM, Clinton SK, et al. The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: what clinicians need to know. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(1):53–8. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-2704.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang TJ, Zhang F, Richards JB, Kestenbaum B, van Meurs JB, Berry D, et al. Common genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency: a genome-wide association study. Lancet. 2010;376(9736):180–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60588-0.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karohl C, Su S, Kumari M, Tangpricha V, Veledar E, Vaccarino V, et al. Heritability and seasonal variability of vitamin D concentrations in male twins. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.30176.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orton SM, Ebers GC. Heritability of serum vitamin D concentrations: twin studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.110.009423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahn J, Yu K, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, Simon KC, McCullough ML, Gallicchio L, et al. Genome-wide association study of circulating vitamin D levels. Hum Mol Genet. 2010;19(13):2739–45. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq155.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whitfield GK, Dang HTL, Schluter SF, Bernstein RM, Bunag T, Manzon LA, et al. Cloning of a functional vitamin D receptor from the lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), an ancient vertebrate lacking a calcified skeleton and teeth. Endocrinology. 2003;144(12746335):2704–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holick MF. Vitamin D: evolutionary, physiological and health perspectives. Curr Drug Targets. 2011;12(1):4–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grossman SR, Shlyakhter I, Karlsson EK, Byrne EH, Morales S, Frieden G, et al. A composite of multiple signals distinguishes causal variants in regions of positive selection. Science. 2010;327(5967):883–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1183863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jablonski NG, Chaplin G. The evolution of human skin coloration. J Hum Evol. 2000;39(1):57–106. doi: 10.1006/jhev.2000.0403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neer RM. The evolutionary significance of vitamin D, skin pigment, and ultraviolet light. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975;43(3):409–16. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330430322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kitanaka S. Genetic basis for skeletal disease: hereditary rickets. Clin Calcium. 2010;20(8):1238–44. doi: Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tiosano D, Wildbaum G, Gepstein V, Verbitsky O, Weisman Y, Karin N, et al. The role of vitamin D receptor in innate and adaptive immunity: a study in hereditary vitamin D-resistant rickets patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(4):1685–93. doi: 10.1210/jc.2012-3858.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Immunosuppression in sepsis: a novel understanding of the disorder and a new therapeutic approach. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):260–8. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70001-x.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andraos C, Koorsen G, Knight JC, Bornman L. Vitamin D receptor gene methylation is associated with ethnicity, tuberculosis, and TaqI polymorphism. Hum Immunol. 2011;72(21168462):262–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smolders J, Peelen E, Thewissen M, Menheere P, Tervaert JW, Hupperts R, et al. The relevance of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms for vitamin D research in multiple sclerosis. Autoimmun Rev. 2009;8(7):621–6. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2009.02.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ji GR, Yao M, Sun CY, Li ZH, Han Z. BsmI, TaqI, ApaI and FokI polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene and risk of fracture in Caucasians: a meta-analysis. Bone. 2010;47(3):681–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.06.024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li L, Wu B, Liu JY, Yang LB. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Arch Med Res. 2013;44(3):235–41. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2013.02.002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neyestani TR, Djazayery A, Shab-Bidar S, Eshraghian MR, Kalayi A, Shariatzadeh N, et al. Vitamin D receptor Fok-I polymorphism modulates diabetic host response to vitamin D intake: need for a nutrigenetic approach. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(3):550–6. doi: 10.2337/dc12-0919.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yokoyama K, Nakashima A, Urashima M, Suga H, Mimura T, Kimura Y, et al. Interactions between serum vitamin D levels and vitamin D receptor gene FokI polymorphisms for renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051171.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee YH, Bae SC, Choi SJ, Ji JD, Song GG. Associations between vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-analysis. Mol Biol Rep. 2011;38(6):3643–51. doi: 10.1007/s11033-010-0477-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ghelani AM, Samanta A, Jones AC, Mastana SS. Association analysis of TNFR2, VDR, A2M, GSTT1, GSTM1, and ACE genes with rheumatoid arthritis in South Asians and Caucasians of East Midlands in the United Kingdom. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31(10):1355–61. doi: 10.1007/s00296-010-1478-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karray EF, Ben Dhifallah I, Ben Abdelghani K, Ben Ghorbel I, Khanfir M, Houman H, et al. Associations of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms FokI and BsmI with susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis and Behcet’s disease in Tunisians. Joint Bone Spine. 2012;79(2):144–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.06.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hussien YM, Shehata A, Karam RA, Alzahrani SS, Magdy H, El-Shafey AM. Polymorphism in vitamin D receptor and osteoprotegerin genes in Egyptian rheumatoid arthritis patients with and without osteoporosis. Mol Biol Rep. 2013;40(5):3675–80. doi: 10.1007/s11033-012-2443-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ortlepp JR, Krantz C, Kimmel M, von Korff A, Vesper K, Schmitz F, et al. Additive effects of the chemokine receptor 2, vitamin D receptor, interleukin-6 polymorphisms and cardiovascular risk factors on the prevalence of myocardial infarction in patients below 65 years. Int J Cardiol. 2005;105(1):90–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.03.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Montenegro MF. Tru9 I restriction polymorphism in vitamin D receptor may cause failure of PCR amplification in Bsm I polymorphism. Int J Cardiol. 2007;114(3):414. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.12.003 author reply 5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fu Y, Li J, Zhang Y. Polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor gene and the lung cancer risk. Tumour Biol. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-1176-2.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Song GG, Lee YH. Vitamin D receptor FokI, BsmI, ApaI, and TaqI polymorphisms and susceptibility to ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Immunol Investig. 2013;42(7):661–72. doi: 10.3109/08820139.2013.822881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kostner K, Denzer N, Muller CS, Klein R, Tilgen W, Reichrath J. The relevance of vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms for cancer: a review of the literature. Anticancer Res. 2009;29(9):3511–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guo YJ, Shi ZM, Liu JD, Lei N, Chen QH, Tang Y. Meta-analysis of the relation between the VDR gene TaqI polymorphism and genetic susceptibility to prostate cancer in Asian populations. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4441–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guo Z, Wen J, Kan Q, Huang S, Liu X, Sun N, et al. Lack of association between vitamin D receptor gene FokI and BsmI polymorphisms and prostate cancer risk: an updated meta-analysis involving 21,756 subjects. Tumour Biol. 2013;34(5):3189–200. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-0889-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perna L, Hoffmeister M, Schottker B, Arndt V, Haug U, Holleczek B, et al. Vitamin D receptor polymorphism and colorectal cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2013.09.007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bai YH, Lu H, Hong D, Lin CC, Yu Z, Chen BC. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk: a systematic meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(14):1672–9. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i14.1672.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang J, He Q, Shao YG, Ji M, Bao W. Associations between vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. Tumour Biol. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-0967-9.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xu J, Li H, Gu L, Zhou X. Association between vitamin D receptor poly(A) polymorphism and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-1082-7.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhou ZC, Wang J, Cai ZH, Zhang QH, Cai ZX, Wu JH. Association between vitamin D receptor gene Cdx2 polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility. Tumour Biol. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-0919-4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jostins L, Ripke S, Weersma RK, Duerr RH, McGovern DP, Hui KY, et al. Host–microbe interactions have shaped the genetic architecture of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2012;491(7422):119–24. doi: 10.1038/nature11582.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    ANZgene. Genome-wide association study identifies new multiple sclerosis susceptibility loci on chromosomes 12 and 20. Nat Genet. 2009;41(7):824–8. doi: 10.1038/ng.396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hirota T, Takahashi A, Kubo M, Tsunoda T, Tomita K, Sakashita M, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies eight new susceptibility loci for atopic dermatitis in the Japanese population. Nat Genet. 2012;44(11):1222–6. doi: 10.1038/ng.2438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sawcer S, Hellenthal G, Pirinen M, Spencer CC, Patsopoulos NA, Moutsianas L, et al. Genetic risk and a primary role for cell-mediated immune mechanisms in multiple sclerosis. Nature. 2011;476(7359):214–9. doi: 10.1038/nature10251.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dong J, Hu Z, Wu C, Guo H, Zhou B, Lv J, et al. Association analyses identify multiple new lung cancer susceptibility loci and their interactions with smoking in the Chinese population. Nat Genet. 2012;44(8):895–9. doi: 10.1038/ng.2351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Adams LA, White SW, Marsh JA, Lye SJ, Connor KL, Maganga R, et al. Association between liver-specific gene polymorphisms and their expression levels with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2013;57(2):590–600. doi: 10.1002/hep.26184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Inouye M, Ripatti S, Kettunen J, Lyytikainen LP, Oksala N, Laurila PP, et al. Novel loci for metabolic networks and multi-tissue expression studies reveal genes for atherosclerosis. PLoS Genet. 2012;8(8):e1002907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002907.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boger CA, Chen MH, Tin A, Olden M, Kottgen A, de Boer IH, et al. CUBN is a gene locus for albuminuria. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(3):555–70. doi: 10.1681/asn.2010060598.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Furney SJ, Simmons A, Breen G, Pedroso I, Lunnon K, Proitsi P, et al. Genome-wide association with MRI atrophy measures as a quantitative trait locus for Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Psychiatry. 2011;16(11):1130–8. doi: 10.1038/mp.2010.123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hazra A, Kraft P, Lazarus R, Chen C, Chanock SJ, Jacques P, et al. Genome-wide significant predictors of metabolites in the one-carbon metabolism pathway. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18(23):4677–87. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddp428.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tanaka T, Scheet P, Giusti B, Bandinelli S, Piras MG, Usala G, et al. Genome-wide association study of vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folate, and homocysteine blood concentrations. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;84(4):477–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.02.011.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lowe JK, Maller JB, Pe’er I, Neale BM, Salit J, Kenny EE, et al. Genome-wide association studies in an isolated founder population from the Pacific Island of Kosrae. PLoS Genet. 2009;5(2):e1000365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000365.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kamatani Y, Matsuda K, Okada Y, Kubo M, Hosono N, Daigo Y, et al. Genome-wide association study of hematological and biochemical traits in a Japanese population. Nat Genet. 2010;42(3):210–5. doi: 10.1038/ng.531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sempos CT, Durazo-Arvizu RA, Dawson-Hughes B, Yetley EA, Looker AC, Schleicher RL, et al. Is there a reverse J-shaped association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and all-cause mortality? Results from the U.S. nationally representative NHANES. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(7):3001–9. doi: 10.1210/jc.2013-1333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(7):CD007470. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub2.
  63. 63.
    Antico A, Tampoia M, Tozzoli R, Bizzaro N. Can supplementation with vitamin D reduce the risk or modify the course of autoimmune diseases? A systematic review of the literature. Autoimmun Rev. 2012;12(2):127–36. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.07.007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Orav EJ, Lips P, Meunier PJ, Lyons RA, et al. A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):40–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1109617.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Khan H, Kunutsor S, Franco OH, Chowdhury R. Vitamin D, type 2 diabetes and other metabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Proc Nutr Soc. 2013;72(1):89–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    George PS, Pearson ER, Witham MD. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycaemic control and insulin resistance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2012;29(8):e142–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03672.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Song GG, Bae SC, Lee YH. Association between vitamin D intake and the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31(12):1733–9. doi: 10.1007/s10067-012-2080-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Varenna M, Manara M, Cantatore FP, Del Puente A, Di Munno O, Malavolta N, et al. Determinants and effects of vitamin D supplementation on serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012;30(5):714–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Racovan M, Walitt B, Collins CE, Pettinger M, Parks CG, Shikany JM, et al. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation and incident rheumatoid arthritis: the Women’s Health Initiative Calcium plus Vitamin D trial. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32(12):3823–30. doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-2268-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gotsman I, Shauer A, Zwas DR, Hellman Y, Keren A, Lotan C, et al. Vitamin D deficiency is a predictor of reduced survival in patients with heart failure; vitamin D supplementation improves outcome. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14(4):357–66. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tomson J, Emberson J, Hill M, Gordon A, Armitage J, Shipley M, et al. Vitamin D and risk of death from vascular and non-vascular causes in the Whitehall study and meta-analyses of 12,000 deaths. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(18):1365–74. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gunta SS, Thadhani RI, Mak RH. The effect of vitamin D status on risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2013. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2013.208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Robinson-Cohen C, Hoofnagle AN, Ix JH, Sachs MC, Tracy RP, Siscovick DS, et al. Racial differences in the association of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with coronary heart disease events. JAMA. 2013;310(2):179–88. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.7228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Correia LC, Sodre F, Garcia G, Sabino M, Brito M, Kalil F, et al. Relation of severe deficiency of vitamin D to cardiovascular mortality during acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(3):324–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.10.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Liu L, Chen M, Hankins SR, Nunez AE, Watson RA, Weinstock PJ, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and mortality from heart failure and cardiovascular disease, and premature mortality from all-cause in United States adults. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(6):834–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Masson S, Solomon S, Angelici L, Latini R, Anand IS, Prescott M, et al. Elevated plasma renin activity predicts adverse outcome in chronic heart failure, independently of pharmacologic therapy: data from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). J Card Fail. 2010;16(12):964–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2010.06.417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schroten NF, Ruifrok WP, Kleijn L, Dokter MM, Sillje HH, Lambers Heerspink HJ, et al. Short-term vitamin D3 supplementation lowers plasma renin activity in patients with stable chronic heart failure: an open-label, blinded end point, randomized prospective trial (VitD-CHF trial). Am Heart J. 2013;166(2):357.e2–364.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hsia J, Heiss G, Ren H, Allison M, Dolan NC, Greenland P, et al. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events. Circulation. 2007;115(7):846–54. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.673491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Picotto G, Liaudat AC, Bohl L, Tolosa de Talamoni N. Molecular aspects of vitamin D anticancer activity. Cancer Investig. 2012;30(8):604–14. doi: 10.3109/07357907.2012.721039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gandini S, Boniol M, Haukka J, Byrnes G, Cox B, Sneyd MJ, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and colorectal, breast and prostate cancer and colorectal adenoma. Int J Cancer. 2011;128(6):1414–24. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Yin L, Ordonez-Mena JM, Chen T, Schottker B, Arndt V, Brenner H. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum concentration and total cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.08.026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Helzlsouer KJ. Overview of the Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(1):4–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq119.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gee J, Bailey H, Kim K, Kolesar J, Havighurst T, Tutsch KD, et al. Phase II open label, multi-center clinical trial of modulation of intermediate endpoint biomarkers by 1alpha-hydroxyvitamin D2 in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and high grade pin. Prostate. 2013;73(9):970–8. doi: 10.1002/pros.22644.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wagner D, Trudel D, Van der Kwast T, Nonn L, Giangreco AA, Li D, et al. Randomized clinical trial of vitamin D3 doses on prostatic vitamin D metabolite levels and ki67 labeling in prostate cancer patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(4):1498–507. doi: 10.1210/jc.2012-4019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Jorde R, Schirmer H, Wilsgaard T, Joakimsen RM, Mathiesen EB, Njolstad I, et al. Polymorphisms related to the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and risk of myocardial infarction, diabetes, cancer and mortality: the Tromso Study. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037295.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Dennis J, Hawken S, Krewski D, Birkett N, Gheorghe M, Frei J, et al. Bias in the case-only design applied to studies of gene-environment and gene–gene interaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(5):1329–41. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr088.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hunter DJ. Gene–environment interactions in human diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6(4):287–98. doi: 10.1038/nrg1578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Khoury MJ, Wacholder S. Invited commentary: from genome-wide association studies to gene–environment-wide interaction studies: challenges and opportunities. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(2):227–30. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn351 discussion 34–35.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, Johnson JA, Anderson JL, Gage BF, et al. A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2283–93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Verhoef TI, Ragia G, de Boer A, Barallon R, Kolovou G, Kolovou V, et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2304–12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N, Jorgensen AL, Toh CH, Nicholson T, et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2294–303. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Chen L, Davey Smith G, Harbord RM, Lewis SJ. Alcohol intake and blood pressure: a systematic review implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. PLoS Med. 2008;5(3):e52. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050052.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Cohen JC, Boerwinkle E, Mosley TH Jr, Hobbs HH. Sequence variations in PCSK9, low LDL, and protection against coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(12):1264–72. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mondul AM, Shui IM, Yu K, Travis RC, Stevens VL, Campa D, et al. Genetic variation in the vitamin D pathway in relation to risk of prostate cancer: results from the breast and prostate cancer cohort consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(4):688–96. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-13-0007-t.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Tsilidis KK, Travis RC, Appleby PN, Allen NE, Lindstrom S, Schumacher FR, et al. Interactions between genome-wide significant genetic variants and circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, sex hormones, and binding proteins in relation to prostate cancer risk in the National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(9):926–35. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr423.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Martineau AR, Timms PM, Bothamley GH, Hanifa Y, Islam K, Claxton AP, et al. High-dose vitamin D(3) during intensive-phase antimicrobial treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9761):242–50. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61889-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ramagopalan SV, Heger A, Berlanga AJ, Maugeri NJ, Lincoln MR, Burrell A, et al. A ChIP-seq defined genome-wide map of vitamin D receptor binding: associations with disease and evolution. Genome Res. 2010;20(10):1352–60. doi: 10.1101/gr.107920.110.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Commercial License which permits any commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio J. Berlanga-Taylor
    • 1
  • Julian C. Knight
    • 2
  1. 1.CGAT, MRC Functional Genomics Unit, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and GeneticsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Clinical MedicineUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations