Transcription factor 7-like 2 (TCF7L2) is part of the Wnt signaling pathway. Genetic variants within TCF7L2 on chromosome 10q were recently reported to be associated with type 2 diabetes in Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples. We previously observed a modest logarithm of odds score of 0.61 on chromosome 10q, ∼1 Mb from TCF7L2, in the Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics study. We tested the five associated TCF7L2 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variants in a Finnish sample of 1,151 type 2 diabetic patients and 953 control subjects. We confirmed the association with the same risk allele (P value <0.05) for all five SNPs. Our strongest results were for rs12255372 (odds ratio [OR] 1.36 [95% CI 1.15–1.61], P = 0.00026) and rs7903146 (1.33 [1.14–1.56], P = 0.00042). Based on the CEU HapMap data, we selected and tested 12 additional SNPs to tag SNPs in linkage disequilibrium with rs12255372. None of these SNPs showed stronger evidence of association than rs12255372 or rs7903146 (OR ≤1.26, P ≥ 0.0054). Our results strengthen the evidence that one or more variants in TCF7L2 are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

Transcription factor 7-like 2 (TCF7L2) encodes a transcription factor that plays a role in the Wnt signaling pathway (1). A complex of TCF7L2, B-catenin, and other cofactors form a complex that is required for transcription of target genes (1). In a fine-scale association study of a 10.5-Mb type 2 diabetes linkage region on chromosome 10q, Grant et al. (2) identified a microsatellite marker, DG10S478, in intron 3 of TCF7L2 that was strongly associated with type 2 diabetes in an Icelandic sample of 1,185 case and 931 control subjects. The most strongly associated allele of DG10S478 was protective; the combination of all other alleles had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.50 (95% CI 1.31–1.71; P = 2.1 × 10−9). This result remained significant after correcting for all the alleles of the 228 microsatellite markers tested in the 10.5-Mb region. DG10S478 also was significantly associated with type 2 diabetes in samples of 228 case and 539 control subjects from Denmark, 361 case and 530 control subjects from the U.S., and in the combined Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples (1.56 [1.42–1.73], P = 4.7 × 10−18) (2). Five nearby single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) also showed strong evidence of type 2 diabetes association in these three case-control sample groups (2). These SNPs were in moderate to strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) (r2 = 0.43–0.95) with the most strongly associated DG10S478 allele and, therefore, also with the combined risk allele (2). We genotyped these 5 SNPs and 12 additional SNPs in Finnish case-control samples and found evidence to support the association of TCF7L2 with risk of type 2 diabetes.

We studied Finnish type 2 diabetic case subjects and normal glucose tolerant control subjects from the Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study (3,4) and from the Finrisk 2002 study, a population-based national risk factor survey in Finland (5). Diabetes was defined according to 1999 World Health Organization criteria (6) of fasting plasma glucose concentration ≥7.0 mmol/l or 2-h plasma glucose concentration ≥11.1 mmol/l, by report of diabetes medication use, or based on medical record review. Normal glucose tolerance (NGT) was defined as having fasting glucose <6.1 mmol/l and 2-h glucose <7.8 mmol/l. We selected 784 unrelated type 2 diabetic case subjects from the FUSION type 2 diabetes affected sibling pair families. We selected control subjects with NGT for the FUSION case subjects from three sources: 140 spouses of FUSION type 2 diabetic individuals, 217 subjects who had NGT by oral glucose tolerance tests at age 65 and 70 years, and 241 individuals from the Finrisk 2002 study sample. From the Finrisk 2002 study sample, we selected an additional set of 367 unrelated type 2 diabetic case subjects and 355 unrelated control subjects with NGT, approximately frequency matched for age, sex, and province of birth. Study protocols for the FUSION and Finrisk 2002 studies were approved by local ethics committees and/or institutional review boards of each participating recruitment or analysis site, and informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

SNP selection and genotyping.

We genotyped the 5 TCF7L2 SNPs described by Grant et al. (2) and 12 SNPs that tagged all 63 SNPs in LD of r2 > 0.2 or D′ > 0.9 with rs12255372 based on the CEPH (Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe) samples from CEU HapMap (October 2005 release). We genotyped the 17 TCF7L2 SNPs using the Sequenom homogeneous MassEXTEND assay. We achieved an average genotype call rate of 97.0% and call rates ≥95.6% for each SNP. Our genotyping was 99.72% consistent based on six inconsistencies among 2,148 duplicate genotype pairs. Genotype data for all 17 SNPs were consistent with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in case subjects, in control subjects, and in combined case and control subjects (P > 0.01). All samples were also genotyped for PPARG P12A and KCNJ11 E23K as described by Douglas et al. (7) or Willer et al. (personal communication).

Statistical analysis.

Those individuals (n = 34) who were missing birthplace information were excluded from all analysis except LD estimation and Genotype-IBD Sharing Test (GIST; see below). We tested for type 2 diabetes–SNP association using logistic regression under the additive genetic model that is multiplicative on the OR scale, a dominant model, and a recessive model, with adjustment for 5-year age category, sex, and birth province. Within the additive model framework for each SNP with association P value <0.05, we tested the ability of any other genotyped SNP to significantly improve the model fit by comparing the fit of a model for the associated SNP to a model containing the associated SNP and one other SNP using a likelihood ratio test (8). To assess the joint risk conferred by the presence of risk alleles from three type 2 diabetes–associated genes, PPARG (P12A), KCNJ11 (E23K), and TCF7L2 (rs12255372), we counted the number of risk alleles for each individual and used the number of risk alleles to predict case/control status using logistic regression. We also directly calculated the OR for each number of risk alleles relative to three risk alleles.

We estimated pairwise LD measures using LDmax (9) and performed haplotype analysis using FAMHAP (10). We used a χ2 test of homogeneity to compare allele frequencies among selected groups. We tested for heterogeneity of ORs using a χ2 goodness-of-fit test (11).

In the FUSION case subjects, we assessed evidence for association between possession of the risk alleles and evidence of linkage in FUSION type 2 diabetes sibships (12) using the GIST (13).

We genotyped the five SNPs originally reported to be associated with type 2 diabetes by Grant et al. (2) in a Finnish sample of 1,151 type 2 diabetic case subjects and 953 control subjects with NGT from the FUSION (3,4) and Finrisk 2002 (5) studies (Table 1). We found significant evidence for type 2 diabetes association for all five of these SNPs (P < 0.05) with the same risk allele as the original report (2) (Table 2 and online appendix Table 1 [available at http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org]). Our strongest evidence for type 2 diabetes association was for rs12255372, located in intron 4 (OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.15–1.61], P = 0.00026), and rs7903146, located in intron 3 (1.33 [1.14–1.56], P = 0.00042). These two SNPs are separated by 50 kb and were in moderately strong LD in our Finnish control subjects (r2 = 0.70, D′ = 0.91) (online appendix Table 2). Our strongest evidence for association was for an additive model (online appendix Table 1), which was consistent with the findings of Grant et al. (2). We combined three separate controls groups, two from FUSION and one from Finrisk, for comparison to the FUSION case subjects. We tested for heterogeneity of allele frequencies among these three control groups and found no significant differences (data not shown). The SNP–type 2 diabetes association OR estimates between the Finrisk and FUSION samples did not differ more frequently than expected by chance given the number of tests performed (online appendix Table 3).

To further investigate the type 2 diabetes TCF7L2 association in this region, we genotyped 12 additional TCF7L2 SNPs that tagged all 63 SNPs in LD of r2 > 0.2 or D′ > 0.9 with rs12255372 based on the CEU HapMap sample; these 12 SNPs all were within introns 3 (88 kb in length) and 4 (101 kb in length). Using this tag SNP set, we observed a region of high LD based on D′ that extended ∼56 kb from the middle of intron 3 (rs17747324) to the first part of intron 4 (rs12255372) and contained the two most strongly associated SNPs, rs7903146 and rs12255372 (online appendix Table 2). In our sample, all but 2 of the 12 additional SNPs were in lower r2 with rs12255372 than the other 4 SNPs from Grant et al. (2), and the 3 most distal SNPs were in lower LD with rs12255372 than predicted by the CEU HapMap sample (online appendix Table 2). Under an additive model, each of the 12 additional SNPs was less strongly associated with type 2 diabetes (OR ≤1.26, P ≥ 0.0054) than rs12255372 or rs7903146 (Table 2).

Haplotype analysis did not reveal a risk haplotype that explained the association substantially more than any individual SNP. Within a logistic regression model framework, either of the two most strongly associated SNPs was, in our sample, sufficient to explain the observed association, since adding a second SNP did not significantly improve model fit.

Risk allele frequencies for the two SNPs with strongest type 2 diabetes associations, rs12255372 and rs7903146, were 8–12% (10–19%) lower in our Finnish control subjects (cases) than in the Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) control subjects (cases) (Table 3). Allele frequencies for these SNPs did not vary significantly among the 13 historical Finnish provinces in control subjects (P ≥ 0.23, data not shown).

In a linkage genome scan of 737 FUSION type 2 diabetic families, we observed modest evidence for type 2 diabetes linkage on chromosome 10q (logarithm of odds = 0.61) at 131.5 cM on the FUSION linkage map near microsatellite marker D10S1237, ∼1 Mb distal to TCF7L2 (12). Using GIST, we found evidence for an association between the presence of the risk allele in the FUSION type 2 diabetic case subjects and increased allele sharing identity by descent within FUSION type 2 diabetes sibships for the four most strongly associated SNPs by case/control analysis, rs7903146, rs7901695, rs17747224, and rs12255372 (P = 0.036, 0.033, 0.055, and 0.064, respectively), suggesting that any of these SNPs may partially explain the observed linkage signal.

One of the underlying goals of type 2 diabetes genetic research is to identify individuals at higher or lower risk for disease based on the presence or absence of risk variants from multiple genes. Of SNPs that have been tested for type 2 diabetes association by multiple groups, PPARG P12A and KCNJ11 E23K have been shown to be associated with type 2 diabetes in multiple studies (1416,17) including FUSION (7) (Willer et al., personal communication). We examined the combined risk of type 2 diabetes from variants in PPARG, KCNJ11, and TCF7L2 in our Finnish sample. Within our sample, the ORs from additive models for PPARG P12A (1.27 [95% CI 1.07–1.50]), KCNJ11 E23K (1.23 [1.08–1.40]), and the TCF7L2 rs12255372 allele T (1.35 [1.16–1.38]) did not differ significantly, and thus, we analyzed the data in terms of the total number of risk alleles for these three SNPs (0–6 risk alleles). Each risk allele increased the odds of type 2 diabetes, which approximates the increase in risk, by a factor of 1.26 (95% CI 1.15–1.38). For example, compared with individuals with the median number of three risk alleles, individuals with one risk allele have 0.63-fold–higher risk of type 2 diabetes, and individuals with five risk alleles have 1.59-fold–higher risk of type 2 diabetes (Table 4). When we do not assume equal allele effects but instead calculate the OR for each number of risk alleles compared with the reference count of three risk alleles, we obtain similar OR estimates (Table 4).

We found type 2 diabetes association in Finns with the five type 2 diabetes–associated TCF7L2 SNPs identified by Grant et al. (2). Our two most strongly associated SNPs had the strongest evidence of association in the combined Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples. The ORs based on our Finnish sample were consistently lower than those reported by Grant et al. (2), but there was no evidence of heterogeneity in the ORs between our Finnish sample and the original Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples for any of the five SNPs (P = 0.21−0.45) (Table 2).

We assayed 12 additional TCF7L2 SNPs chosen to tag all known SNPs in LD with rs12255372 and did not find evidence of a more strongly associated variant. However, we have not assayed SNPs that cover the remainder of the gene, and other TCF7L2 variants that increase of risk of type 2 diabetes may exist.

The risk allele frequencies for our two most strongly associated SNPs were substantially lower in Finnish case and control subjects than in the Icelandic, Danish, or American (U.S.) case and control subjects of Grant et al. (2), suggesting that there are underlying differences in the population allele frequencies rather than differences due to case or control sampling criteria.

We found evidence from GIST (13) that the associated variants partially explain the excess allele sharing identity by descent in the region of our modest linkage signal (logarithm of odds = 0.61) (12) on chromosome 10q, again suggesting that a variant or variants that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes are present in this region. However, in the Icelandic sample, these SNPs did not explain the observed linkage signal (2).

We found additive effects on the risk of type 2 diabetes for each additional risk allele from TCF7L2, PPARG (P12A), and KCNJ11 (E23K). Hansen et al. (18) observed additive effects for the number of risk alleles from PPARG (P12A) and KCNJ11 (E23K), and Hattersley et al. (19) observed additive effects for these alleles in combination with alleles from additional risk loci. These SNPs likely represent only a small proportion of the total set of genetic variants associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes; thus, an individual with multiple risk alleles from this particular set of three variants could still have a low risk of type 2 diabetes compared with others in the population. These OR estimates also may be biased relative to those that would be observed in the general population because a large proportion of our case subjects are from type 2 diabetes affected sibpair families and because we have excluded individuals with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose from our control group.

We tested the TCF7L2 SNPs for quantitative trait association, including weight-related traits, blood pressure, fasting levels of insulin, glucose, lipids, and free fatty acids in FUSION case subjects; 2-h oral glucose tolerance test in FUSION control subjects; insulin and glucose in control subjects; and glucose effectiveness, acute insulin response, and insulin sensitivity and disposition index in spouse control subjects (3,4). We found no significant SNP trait associations after taking into account the number of tests. The most significant result was observed in the FUSION spouse group with lower disposition index in individuals with the G (putative risk) allele of rs11196192 (P = 0.0020) (data not shown).

In summary, we have confirmed the association of variants in TCF7L2 with type 2 diabetes observed in the Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples of Grant et al. (2). TCF7L2 joins a growing list of transcription factors that are involved in the growth, development, and metabolism of type 2 diabetes and contain genetic variants that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of the FUSION and Finrisk 2002 case and control samples

FUSION cases and FUSION/Finrisk control subjects
Finrisk
FUSION case subjectsFUSION control subjectsFinrisk control subjectsCase subjectsControl subjects
n 784 357* 241 367 355 
    Male 435 144 168 219 207 
    Female 349 213 73 148 148 
Age at diagnosis (years) 51.0 (12.0) NA NA 59.0 (12.0) NA 
Age at examination (years) 64.3 (10.1) 69.8 (5.7) 65.0 (10.0) 61.0 (12.0) 61.0 (11.0) 
BMI (kg/m229.4 (6.1) 26.9 (5.3) 26.8 (4.3) 30.7 (6.4) 26.7 (4.5) 
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) 9.7 (4.8) 5.0 (0.6) 5.6 (0.5) 7.2 (1.4) 5.6 (0.5) 
Fasting insulin (pmol/l) 96.0 (84.0) 60.0 (36.0) 42.0 (28.8) 79.8 (61.2) 39.0 (28.8) 
FUSION cases and FUSION/Finrisk control subjects
Finrisk
FUSION case subjectsFUSION control subjectsFinrisk control subjectsCase subjectsControl subjects
n 784 357* 241 367 355 
    Male 435 144 168 219 207 
    Female 349 213 73 148 148 
Age at diagnosis (years) 51.0 (12.0) NA NA 59.0 (12.0) NA 
Age at examination (years) 64.3 (10.1) 69.8 (5.7) 65.0 (10.0) 61.0 (12.0) 61.0 (11.0) 
BMI (kg/m229.4 (6.1) 26.9 (5.3) 26.8 (4.3) 30.7 (6.4) 26.7 (4.5) 
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) 9.7 (4.8) 5.0 (0.6) 5.6 (0.5) 7.2 (1.4) 5.6 (0.5) 
Fasting insulin (pmol/l) 96.0 (84.0) 60.0 (36.0) 42.0 (28.8) 79.8 (61.2) 39.0 (28.8) 

Data are median (interquartile range).

*

Two hundred seventeen FUSION elderly control subjects and 140 spouse control subjects. NA, not applicable.

TABLE 2

Comparison of ORs for TCF7L2 SNPs genotyped in Finnish and in Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples

SNPTCF7L2 locationGenomic position§Relative positionRisk alleleFinnish sample (current study)
Combined Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples*
Test for heterogeneity of OR between four samples
OR95% CITwo-sided P valueOR¶95% CITwo-sided P valueP value
rs11196175 Intron 3 114726604 −72.288 1.16 0.59–1.35 0.070     
rs7079711 Intron 3 114735778 −63.114 1.08 0.93–1.26 0.30     
rs11196181 Intron 3 114739008 −59.884 1.01 0.81–1.26 0.94     
rs17747324 Intron 3 114742493 −56.399 1.26 1.07–1.48 0.0054     
rs7901695 Intron 3 114744078 −54.814 1.25 1.07–1.45 0.0042 1.49 1.35–1.65 3.9 × 10−15 0.21 
rs7903146 Intron 3 114748339 −50.553 1.33 1.14–1.56 0.00042 1.54 1.39–1.70 2.1 × 10−17 0.29 
rs7896811 Intron 3 114756707 −42.185 1.01 0.86–1.18 0.93     
rs11196192 Intron 3 114772277 −26.615 1.35 0.97–1.87 0.080     
rs11196199 Intron 3 114786107 −12.785 1.04 0.89–1.21 0.65     
rs17685538 Intron 3 114787461 −11.431 1.14 0.96–1.36 0.14     
rs7895340 Intron 4 114791515 −7.377 1.16 1.02–1.32 0.029 1.31 1.19–1.44 1.4 × 10−8 0.45 
rs11196205 Intron 4 114797037 −1.855 1.15 1.01–1.31 0.030 1.31 1.19–1.44 4.6 × 10−8 0.41 
rs12255372 Intron 4 114798892 1.36 1.15–1.61 0.00026 1.52 1.38–1.68 2.5 × 10−16 0.41 
rs11196213 Intron 4 114811544 12.652 1.14 1.00–1.29 0.049     
rs11196228 Intron 4 114854287 55.395 1.39 1.07–1.81 0.015     
rs290494 Intron 4 114875861 76.969 1.14 0.94–1.37 0.18     
rs1555485 Intron 4 114902524 103.632 1.02 0.88–1.18 0.82     
SNPTCF7L2 locationGenomic position§Relative positionRisk alleleFinnish sample (current study)
Combined Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples*
Test for heterogeneity of OR between four samples
OR95% CITwo-sided P valueOR¶95% CITwo-sided P valueP value
rs11196175 Intron 3 114726604 −72.288 1.16 0.59–1.35 0.070     
rs7079711 Intron 3 114735778 −63.114 1.08 0.93–1.26 0.30     
rs11196181 Intron 3 114739008 −59.884 1.01 0.81–1.26 0.94     
rs17747324 Intron 3 114742493 −56.399 1.26 1.07–1.48 0.0054     
rs7901695 Intron 3 114744078 −54.814 1.25 1.07–1.45 0.0042 1.49 1.35–1.65 3.9 × 10−15 0.21 
rs7903146 Intron 3 114748339 −50.553 1.33 1.14–1.56 0.00042 1.54 1.39–1.70 2.1 × 10−17 0.29 
rs7896811 Intron 3 114756707 −42.185 1.01 0.86–1.18 0.93     
rs11196192 Intron 3 114772277 −26.615 1.35 0.97–1.87 0.080     
rs11196199 Intron 3 114786107 −12.785 1.04 0.89–1.21 0.65     
rs17685538 Intron 3 114787461 −11.431 1.14 0.96–1.36 0.14     
rs7895340 Intron 4 114791515 −7.377 1.16 1.02–1.32 0.029 1.31 1.19–1.44 1.4 × 10−8 0.45 
rs11196205 Intron 4 114797037 −1.855 1.15 1.01–1.31 0.030 1.31 1.19–1.44 4.6 × 10−8 0.41 
rs12255372 Intron 4 114798892 1.36 1.15–1.61 0.00026 1.52 1.38–1.68 2.5 × 10−16 0.41 
rs11196213 Intron 4 114811544 12.652 1.14 1.00–1.29 0.049     
rs11196228 Intron 4 114854287 55.395 1.39 1.07–1.81 0.015     
rs290494 Intron 4 114875861 76.969 1.14 0.94–1.37 0.18     
rs1555485 Intron 4 114902524 103.632 1.02 0.88–1.18 0.82     
*

From Grant et al. (2); see online appendix Table 4.

Test for OR heterogeneity between the individual Finnish, Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples.

Intronic location from Ensemble ENST00000347863.

§

Genomic position on chromosome 10 in NCBI Build 35.

Genomic position (in kilobytes) relative to rs12255372.

OR calculated using an additive genetic model that in logistic regression is multiplicative on the OR scale.

TABLE 3

Comparison of allele frequencies for TCF7L2 in Finnish, Icelandic, Danish, and American (U.S.) samples

SNPRelative position*Risk alleleCase/control statusRisk allele frequency
P value for testing of heterogeneity of allele frequencies
FinnishIcelandicDanishU.S.With FinnsWithout Finns
rs7901695 −54.814 Control 0.22 0.30 0.28 0.30 1.2 × 10−8 0.48 
   Case 0.25 0.39 0.35 0.40 <1.0 × 10−10 0.15 
rs7903146 −50.553 Control 0.18 0.30 0.27 0.28 <1.0 × 10−10 0.27 
   Case 0.22 0.39 0.36 0.40 <1.0 × 10−10 0.21 
rs7895340 −7.377 Control 0.43 0.46 0.43 0.47 0.06 0.35 
   Case 0.45 0.52 0.52 0.53 1.9 × 10−6 0.90 
rs11196205 −1.855 Control 0.43 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.015 0.13 
   Case 0.45 0.53 0.52 0.54 1.8 × 10−7 0.38 
rs12255372 Control 0.16 0.28 0.26 0.26 <1.0 × 10−10 0.17 
   Case 0.20 0.36 0.33 0.39 <1.0 × 10−10 0.12 
SNPRelative position*Risk alleleCase/control statusRisk allele frequency
P value for testing of heterogeneity of allele frequencies
FinnishIcelandicDanishU.S.With FinnsWithout Finns
rs7901695 −54.814 Control 0.22 0.30 0.28 0.30 1.2 × 10−8 0.48 
   Case 0.25 0.39 0.35 0.40 <1.0 × 10−10 0.15 
rs7903146 −50.553 Control 0.18 0.30 0.27 0.28 <1.0 × 10−10 0.27 
   Case 0.22 0.39 0.36 0.40 <1.0 × 10−10 0.21 
rs7895340 −7.377 Control 0.43 0.46 0.43 0.47 0.06 0.35 
   Case 0.45 0.52 0.52 0.53 1.9 × 10−6 0.90 
rs11196205 −1.855 Control 0.43 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.015 0.13 
   Case 0.45 0.53 0.52 0.54 1.8 × 10−7 0.38 
rs12255372 Control 0.16 0.28 0.26 0.26 <1.0 × 10−10 0.17 
   Case 0.20 0.36 0.33 0.39 <1.0 × 10−10 0.12 
*

Genomic position (in kilobytes) relative to rs12255372 (114,798,892 on chromosome 10 in NCBI Build 35).

From Grant et al. (2); see online appendix Table 3.

TABLE 4

Effect of number of risk alleles from PPARG, KCNJ11, and TCF7L2 on the odds of type 2 diabetes: comparison to the three risk allele category

Number of risk allelesProportion of Finnish sampleAssuming equal increase in OR for each additional risk allele*
Allowing for unequal increase in OR for each additional risk allele
OROR95% CIP value
0.005 0.50 0.46 0.10–2.00 0.30 
0.05 0.63 0.69 0.46–1.02 0.06 
0.25 0.80 0.84 0.66–1.06 0.13 
0.38 1.00 1.00 Ref.  
0.24 1.26 1.30 1.02–1.66 0.03 
0.06 1.59 1.70 1.13–2.56 0.01 
0.01 2.00 2.90 0.78–10.8 0.11 
Number of risk allelesProportion of Finnish sampleAssuming equal increase in OR for each additional risk allele*
Allowing for unequal increase in OR for each additional risk allele
OROR95% CIP value
0.005 0.50 0.46 0.10–2.00 0.30 
0.05 0.63 0.69 0.46–1.02 0.06 
0.25 0.80 0.84 0.66–1.06 0.13 
0.38 1.00 1.00 Ref.  
0.24 1.26 1.30 1.02–1.66 0.03 
0.06 1.59 1.70 1.13–2.56 0.01 
0.01 2.00 2.90 0.78–10.8 0.11 
*

Based on a 1.26-fold increase in OR for each additional risk allele (determined from an additive model for the number of risk alleles).

Independent estimation of the OR for each risk allele count.

Additional information for this article can be found in an online appendix at http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

The FUSION study was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants DK62370 (to M.B.), DK72193 (to K.L.M.), and U54 DA021519 and by National Human Genome Research Institute intramural funds under project number 1 Z01 HG000024 and NIH Grant DA021519. K.L.M. is supported by a Burroughs Wellcome Career Award in the Biomedical Sciences. J.T. has been partially supported by the Academy of Finland (38387 and 46558). R.N.B. is supported by NIH Grants DK27619 and DK29867.

We thank the Finnish citizens who generously participated in the FUSION study.

1.
Prunier C, Hocevar BA, Howe PH: Wnt signaling: physiology and pathology (Review).
Growth Factors
22
:
141
–150,
2004
2.
Grant SF, Thorleifsson G, Reynisdottir I, Benediktsson R, Manolescu A, Sainz J, Helgason A, Stefansson H, Emilsson V, Helgadottir A, Styrkarsdottir U, Magnusson KP, Walters GB, Palsdottir E, Jonsdottir T, Gudmundsdottir T, Gylfason A, Saemundsdottir J, Wilensky RL, Reilly MP, Rader DJ, Bagger Y, Christiansen C, Gudnason V, Sigurdsson G, Thorsteinsdottir U, Gulcher JR, Kong A, Stefansson K: Variant of transcription factor 7-like 2 (TCF7L2) gene confers risk of type 2 diabetes.
Nat Genet
38
:
320
–323,
2006
3.
Valle T, Tuomilehto J, Bergman RN, Ghosh S, Hauser ER, Eriksson J, Nylund SJ, Kohtamaki K, Toivanen L, Vidgren G, Tuomilehto-Wolf E, Ehnholm C, Blaschak J, Langefeld CD, Watanabe RM, Magnuson V, Ally DS, Hagopian WA, Ross E, Buchanan TA, Collins F, Boehnke M: Mapping genes for NIDDM: design of the Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study.
Diabetes Care
21
:
949
–958,
1998
4.
Silander K, Mohlke KL, Scott LJ, Peck EC, Hollstein P, Skol AD, Jackson AU, Deloukas P, Hunt S, Stavrides G, Chines PS, Erdos MR, Narisu N, Conneely KN, Li C, Fingerlin TE, Dhanjal SK, Valle TT, Bergman RN, Tuomilehto J, Watanabe RM, Boehnke M, Collins FS: Genetic variation near the hepatocyte nuclear factor-4 α gene predicts susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes
53
:
1141
–1149,
2004
5.
Saaristo T, Peltonen M, Lindstrom J, Saarikoski L, Sundvall J, Eriksson JG, Tuomilehto J: Cross-sectional evaluation of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score: a tool to identify undetected type 2 diabetes, abnormal glucose tolerance and metabolic syndrome.
Diab Vasc Dis Res
2
:
67
–72,
2005
6.
World Health Organization: Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. In
Report of a WHO Consultation, Part 1: Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus
. Geneva, World Health Org.,
1999
(WHO/NCD/NCS/99.2)
7.
Douglas JA, Erdos MR, Watanabe RM, Braun A, Johnston CL, Oeth P, Mohlke KL, Valle TT, Ehnholm C, Buchanan TA, Bergman RN, Collins FS, Boehnke M, Tuomilehto J: The peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor-γ2 Pro12A1a variant: association with type 2 diabetes and trait differences.
Diabetes
50
:
886
–890,
2001
8.
Cordell HJ, Clayton DG: A unified stepwise regression procedure for evaluating the relative effects of polymorphisms within a gene using case/control or family data: application to HLA in type 1 diabetes.
Am J Hum Genet
70
:
124
–141,
2002
9.
Abecasis GR, Cookson WO: GOLD: graphical overview of linkage disequilibrium.
Bioinformatics
16
:
182
–183,
2000
10.
Becker T, Knapp M: A powerful strategy to account for multiple testing in the context of haplotype analysis.
Am J Hum Genet
75
:
561
–570,
2004
11.
Reis IM, Hirji KF, Afifi AA: Exact and asymptotic tests for homogeneity in several 2 x 2 tables.
Stat Med
18
:
893
–906,
1999
12.
Silander K, Scott LJ, Valle TT, Mohlke KL, Stringham HM, Wiles KR, Duren WL, Doheny KF, Pugh EW, Chines P, Narisu N, White PP, Fingerlin TE, Jackson AU, Li C, Ghosh S, Magnuson VL, Colby K, Erdos MR, Hill JE, Hollstein P, Humphreys KM, Kasad RA, Lambert J, Lazaridis KN, Lin G, Morales-Mena A, Patzkowski K, Pfahl C, Porter R, Rha D, Segal L, Suh YD, Tovar J, Unni A, Welch C, Douglas JA, Epstein MP, Hauser ER, Hagopian W, Buchanan TA, Watanabe RM, Bergman RN, Tuomilehto J, Collins FS, Boehnke M: A large set of Finnish affected sibling pair families with type 2 diabetes suggests susceptibility loci on chromosomes 6, 11, and 14.
Diabetes
53
:
821
–829,
2004
13.
Li C, Scott LJ, Boehnke M: Assessing whether an allele can account in part for a linkage signal: the Genotype-IBD Sharing Test (GIST).
Am J Hum Genet
74
:
418
–431,
2004
14.
Deeb SS, Fajas L, Nemoto M, Pihlajamaki J, Mykkanen L, Kuusisto J, Laakso M, Fujimoto W, Auwerx J: A Pro12Ala substitution in PPARgamma2 associated with decreased receptor activity, lower body mass index and improved insulin sensitivity.
Nat Genet
20
:
284
–287,
1998
15.
Altshuler D, Hirschhorn JN, Klannemark M, Lindgren CM, Vohl MC, Nemesh J, Lane CR, Schaffner SF, Bolk S, Brewer C, Tuomi T, Gaudet D, Hudson TJ, Daly M, Groop L, Lander ES: The common PPARgamma Pro12Ala polymorphism is associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Nat Genet
26
:
76
–80,
2000
16.
Hani EH, Boutin P, Durand E, Inoue H, Permutt MA, Velho G, Froguel P: Missense mutations in the pancreatic islet beta cell inwardly rectifying K+ channel gene (KIR6.2/BIR): a meta-analysis suggests a role in the polygenic basis of type II diabetes mellitus in Caucasians.
Diabetologia
41
:
1511
–1515,
1998
17.
van Dam RM, Hoebee B, Seidell JC, Schaap MM, de Bruin TW, Feskens EJ: Common variants in the ATP-sensitive K+ channel genes KCNJ11 (Kir6.2) and ABCC8 (SUR1) in relation to glucose intolerance: population-based studies and meta-analyses.
Diabet Med
22
:
590
–598,
2005
18.
Hansen SK, Nielsen EM, Ek J, Andersen G, Glumer C, Carstensen B, Mouritzen P, Drivsholm T, Borch-Johnsen K, Jorgensen T, Hansen T, Pedersen O: Analysis of separate and combined effects of common variation in KCNJ11 and PPARG on risk of type 2 diabetes.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
90
:
3629
–3637,
2005
19.
Hattersley A, Weedon MN, McCarthy MI, Walker M, Hitman G, Shields B, Owen K, Frayling T: Combining multiple susceptibility polymorphisms can increase the predictive power of genetic information: a study of replicated type 2 diabetes variants [abstract online],
2005
. Available from http://www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg05s/