Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a heterogeneous disorder with contributions from peripheral insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction. For minimization of phenotypic heterogeneity, quantitative intermediate phenotypes characterizing basal glucose homeostasis (insulin resistance and HOMA of insulin resistance [HOMAIR] and of β-cell function [HOMAB]) have shown promise in relatively large samples. We investigated the utility of dynamic measures of glucose homeostasis (insulin sensitivity [SI] and acute insulin response [AIRg]) evaluating T2D-susceptibility variants (n = 57) in Hispanic Americans from the GUARDIAN Consortium (n = 2,560). Basal and dynamic measures were genetically correlated (HOMAB-AIRg: ρG = 0.28–0.73; HOMAIR-SI: ρG = −0.73 to −0.83) with increased heritability for the dynamic measure AIRg. Significant association of variants with dynamic measures (P < 8.77 × 10−4) was observed. A pattern of superior performance of AIRg was observed for well-established loci including MTNR1B (P = 9.46 × 10−12), KCNQ1 (P = 1.35 × 10−4), and TCF7L2 (P = 5.10 × 10−4) with study-wise statistical significance. Notably, significant association of MTNR1B with AIRg (P < 1.38 × 10−9) was observed in a population one-fourteenth the size of the initial discovery cohort. These observations suggest that basal and dynamic measures provide different views and levels of sensitivity to discrete elements of glucose homeostasis. Although more costly to obtain, dynamic measures yield significant results that could be considered physiologically “closer” to causal pathways and provide insight into the discrete mechanisms of action.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a heterogeneous disorder in which complex interactions of peripheral insulin resistance with concomitant β-cell dysfunction lead to clinical presentation of disease. The “gold standards” for assessment of insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction are the euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic and hyperglycemic clamps (1), respectively. An alternative approach, the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIGT) with minimal model (MINMOD) analysis (2), has been widely used and provides dynamic measures of glucose and insulin utilization, similar to the clamps, with correlated results across a range of glucose tolerance states (36). However, the expertise, time, and expense required by these measures as well as demands placed on the participant makes it difficult to perform these tests in large epidemiological studies. Consequently, basal estimates calculated from fasting glucose and insulin values, e.g., HOMA of insulin resistance (HOMAIR) and of β-cell function (HOMAB), in addition to simple measures of glycemic control have been widely used.

More than 80 loci (7) have been robustly implicated in T2D risk through evaluation of common variation across the genome in studies comprising up to 110,452 subjects (8). Collectively, however, these variants explain <10% of disease risk (8,9). Complementary efforts have explored the genetics of quantitative intermediate phenotypes of glucose homeostasis in normoglycemic individuals (8,10,11). To date, these studies have focused on the identification of variants modulating disease risk through assessment of basal insulin resistance or β-cell function. The majority of these loci appear to mediate their effects through β-cell function, while few loci have been identified that influence insulin resistance, despite an extensive literature documenting insulin resistance as a major component of T2D (1216).

Despite the wide use of basal measures of glucose homeostasis to dissect the mechanistic heterogeneity of T2D, contributions to the pathophysiology remain unclear for many loci. Dynamic measures have the potential to elucidate contributors more proximal to the causal gene product resulting in the overt phenotype of T2D with attendant increases in power for discovery. Further, such analyses may more clearly identify the physiological path through which T2D susceptibility is transmitted. We evaluated the performance of basal (HOMAIR and HOMAB) and dynamic (acute insulin response [AIRg] and insulin sensitivity [SI]) measures of glucose homeostasis in the Genetics Underlying Diabetes in Hispanics (GUARDIAN) Consortium. Through statistical genetic comparison, we evaluated and contrasted the genetic basis of basal and dynamic measures of glucose homeostasis and used previously identified T2D susceptibility variants to evaluate the advantage of dynamic indices.

Study Population

The GUARDIAN Consortium was established to evaluate the genetic basis of factors that predispose to T2D, including insulin resistance, metabolic clearance rate of insulin, and insulin response, in Mexican Americans (17). Participating cohorts were ascertained for various conditions including diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, or large family size and included persons with and without T2D who self-reported Mexican ancestry. Specific to this report, data were used from 2,560 Mexican American study subjects without T2D from four cohorts that measured glucose homeostasis by the FSIGT: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis study (IRAS), the IRAS Family Study (IRASFS), BetaGene, and Troglitazone in the Prevention of Diabetes (TRIPOD). All participants provided written informed consent, and institutional review boards at the clinical, laboratory, and coordinating centers approved the study.

Phenotyping

Dynamic measures of glucose homeostasis traits were measured in all participants by FSIGT with two modifications: an injection of insulin was used (TRIPOD injected tolbutamide) to ensure adequate plasma insulin levels for the accurate computation of SI across a broad range of glucose tolerance (18), and a reduced sampling protocol was used (19). AIRg was calculated as the increase in insulin concentrations at 2–8 min above the basal (fasting) insulin level after a bolus glucose injection at 0–1 min. SI and glucose effectiveness (SG) were derived from the FSIGT by mathematical modeling using the MINMOD program (20). Disposition index (DI) was calculated as the product of SI × AIRg. HOMAIR and HOMAB were modeled from fasting glucose and insulin measures using the updated HOMA model (21). A comprehensive description of study variables has previously been described (17,22).

Genotyping

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected for analysis with a bias toward variants for T2D and glucose homeostasis traits (e.g., fasting glucose), which have exhibited relatively large effect sizes and which have been widely replicated. This resulted in the selection of 57 variants (2327) for analysis. Based on the a priori evidence of association, this discovery set yields increased power as well as increased probability of detecting effects across ancestries. Genotyping and quality control have been described in detail (22). Briefly, samples were genotyped on the Illumina HumanOmniExpress array. Samples with call rates >0.98 and SNPs with call rates >0.99 and minor allele frequency >0.001 passed laboratory quality control following usual best practices (e.g., sufficient signal and cluster separation with no replicate errors) (28). For family-based studies, pedigree structures were confirmed using standard procedures (e.g., Kinship-based INference for Gwas [KING] [http://people.virginia.edu/∼wc9c/KING/index.html]), and SNPs were examined for Mendelian inconsistencies using PedCheck (http://watson.hgen.pitt.edu/register/docs/pedcheck.html).

Statistical Analysis

A variance components approach as implemented in Sequential Oligogenic Linkage Analysis Routines (SOLAR) (29) was used to compute estimates of heritability (h2) for each trait in the two family-based cohorts (BetaGene and IRASFS). Because BetaGene was ascertained for gestational diabetes mellitus, putting subjects at a higher risk to develop T2D, an ascertainment correction was implemented in SOLAR. When necessary, winsorization or transformation was applied to best approximate the distributional assumptions of conditional normality and homogeneity of variance. For traits warranting transformation, the same transformation was applied across both cohorts and included natural logarithm of the trait plus a constant (SI), natural logarithm (fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMAIR, and HOMAB), and square root (AIRg and DI); SG was not transformed. Residual phenotypic variance, after accounting for covariates (age and sex ± BMI), was partitioned into additive genetic and nongenetic (environmental) components and tested using maximum likelihood methods in SOLAR.

Variance component models as implemented in SOLAR (29) were used to test for association in family cohorts and linear regression models as implemented in QSNPGWA from the SNPlash suite (https://github.com/guyrt/WFUBMC/tree/master/snplash) in nonfamily cohorts. All models included age, sex, BMI, study site (in multicenter recruitment studies), and admixture proportions. Traits were conditioned to approximate a normal distribution as described above. Population substructure was estimated using ADMIXTURE (http://www.genetics.ucla.edu/software/admixture/). In all tests for association, admixture proportions were included as covariates in the model such that the covariates were not collinear and tests of association did not exhibit evidence of inflation.

The primary inference was derived from the additive genetic model. The inverse variance–weighted method with weighting based on sample size was used to combine the evidence of association across cohorts as implemented in METAL (http://www.sph.umich.edu/csg/abecasis/metal/). A P < 8.77 × 10−4 (Bonferroni correction for 57 loci) was considered statistically significant. For each SNP-trait combination, we calculated the Wald statistic for comparison of the phenotypes on a unitless scale. With use of a matched pairs analysis as implemented in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess enrichment of previously reported loci for association with T2D-related quantitative traits.

Power for the association analysis (accounting for the familial correlations, with simulation-based estimations, resulting in an effective sample size of 92% of the total [n = 2,344]) was estimated to be 80% to detect SNP–quantitative trait associations that explain 1% and 0.56% of the variation in the quantitative traits at α = 5 × 10−8 and α = 1 × 10−4, respectively.

The study was performed with data from 2,560 Mexican Americans without T2D from four cohorts (Table 1). On average, the study subjects were overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) and the majority of participants were female. The four cohorts varied in mean SI from moderately insulin resistant (IRAS: mean SI of 1.33 ± 1.24 × 10−4 ⋅ min−1 ⋅ µU−1 mL) to average SI (IRASFS: mean SI of 2.14 ± 1.86 × 10−4 ⋅ min−1 ⋅ µU−1 mL) to relatively insulin sensitive for the younger, largely female BetaGene cohort (mean SI of 3.03 ± 1.63 × 10−4 ⋅ min−1 ⋅ µU−1 mL). Correspondingly, insulin response (AIRg) was higher among more insulin resistant cohorts (IRAS and IRASFS), resulting in comparable DI values across the cohorts. The trend for the measure of insulin resistance derived from basal estimates (HOMAIR) mirrored that of the FSIGT, and similarly, estimates of β-cell function (HOMAB) were compensatory.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of the GUARDIAN cohorts

IRASIRASFSBetaGeneTRIPOD
Demographics     
 Sample size 187 1,034 1,214 125 
 Age (years) 58.8 ± 8.3 40.6 ± 13.7 34.6 ± 7.9 34.8 ± 6.3 
 Women (%) 58.3 59.0 72.1 100.0 
 BMI (kg ⋅ m−228.9 ± 5.1 28.3 ± 5.7 29.5 ± 6.1 30.6 ± 5.4 
Dynamic measures     
 AIRg (µU ⋅ mL−1 ⋅ min) 673 ± 702 760 ± 649 569 ± 480 488 ± 450 
SI (×10−4 ⋅ min−1 ⋅ µU−1 ⋅ mL) 1.33 ± 1.24 2.14 ± 1.86 3.03 ± 1.63 2.57 ± 1.79 
 DI 1,245 ± 1,184 1,202 ± 1,236 1,409 ± 946 1,004 ± 724 
SG (min−10.0208 ± 0.0088 0.0202 ± 0.0091 0.0178 ± 0.0067 0.0157 ± 0.0041 
Basal measures     
 HOMAB 128.7 ± 42.9 120.8 ± 45.6 89.4 ± 45.3 119.4 ± 40.3 
 HOMAIR 1.99 ± 1.03 1.67 ± 1.04 0.974 ± 0.722 1.87 ± 0.98 
 Fasting glucose (mg ⋅ dL−196.8 ± 10.1 93.4 ± 9.5 90.8 ± 11.5 98.3 ± 9.5 
 Fasting insulin (mL ⋅ units ⋅ L−118.39 ± 11.61 14.90 ± 11.04 8.69 ± 6.51 16.57 ± 8.90 
IRASIRASFSBetaGeneTRIPOD
Demographics     
 Sample size 187 1,034 1,214 125 
 Age (years) 58.8 ± 8.3 40.6 ± 13.7 34.6 ± 7.9 34.8 ± 6.3 
 Women (%) 58.3 59.0 72.1 100.0 
 BMI (kg ⋅ m−228.9 ± 5.1 28.3 ± 5.7 29.5 ± 6.1 30.6 ± 5.4 
Dynamic measures     
 AIRg (µU ⋅ mL−1 ⋅ min) 673 ± 702 760 ± 649 569 ± 480 488 ± 450 
SI (×10−4 ⋅ min−1 ⋅ µU−1 ⋅ mL) 1.33 ± 1.24 2.14 ± 1.86 3.03 ± 1.63 2.57 ± 1.79 
 DI 1,245 ± 1,184 1,202 ± 1,236 1,409 ± 946 1,004 ± 724 
SG (min−10.0208 ± 0.0088 0.0202 ± 0.0091 0.0178 ± 0.0067 0.0157 ± 0.0041 
Basal measures     
 HOMAB 128.7 ± 42.9 120.8 ± 45.6 89.4 ± 45.3 119.4 ± 40.3 
 HOMAIR 1.99 ± 1.03 1.67 ± 1.04 0.974 ± 0.722 1.87 ± 0.98 
 Fasting glucose (mg ⋅ dL−196.8 ± 10.1 93.4 ± 9.5 90.8 ± 11.5 98.3 ± 9.5 
 Fasting insulin (mL ⋅ units ⋅ L−118.39 ± 11.61 14.90 ± 11.04 8.69 ± 6.51 16.57 ± 8.90 

Data are means ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

Genetic and environmental correlations (ρG and ρE, respectively) among the T2D-related quantitative traits are presented in Tables 2 and 3 (with BMI adjustment) and in Supplementary Table 1 (without BMI adjustment). AIRg was positively correlated with the basal estimate of HOMABG, IRASFS = 0.73; ρG, BetaGene = 0.28). However, directionality among the composite measures differed between IRASFS fasting glucose (fasting glucose ρG, IRASFS = −0.38; fasting insulin ρG, IRASFS = 0.68) and BetaGene fasting glucose (fasting glucose ρG, BetaGene = 0.07; fasting insulin ρG, BetaGene = 0.48). Among insulin resistance measures, SI was negatively correlated with HOMAIRG, IRASFS = −0.73; ρG, BetaGene = −0.83) as well as the composite phenotypes of fasting glucose (ρG, IRASFS = −0.23; ρG, BetaGene = −0.23) and fasting insulin (ρG, IRASFS = −0.71; ρG, BetaGene = −0.84).

Table 2

Heritability estimates with genetic and environmental correlations for T2D-related quantitative traits in IRASFS adjusting for age, sex, recruitment center, and BMI

Environmental correlations (ρE)Genetic correlations (ρG)
AIRgHOMABSIHOMAIRFasting glucoseFasting insulinDISG
AIRg 0.47 ± 0.07 0.73 ± 0.08 −0.10 ± 0.07 0.60 ± 0.12 −0.38 ± 0.12 0.68 ± 0.12 0.63 ± 0.09 0.52 ± 0.21 
HOMAB 0.30 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.07 −0.34 ± 0.06 0.81 ± 0.02 −0.40 ± 0.15 0.88 ± 0.04 −0.02 ± 0.07 −0.01 ± 0.06 
SI −0.44 ± 0.12 −0.57 ± 0.12 0.34 ± 0.06 −0.73 ± 0.09 −0.23 ± 0.15 −0.71 ± 0.10 0.38 ± 0.013 0.55 ± 0.22 
HOMAIR 0.12 ± 0.07 0.84 ± 0.05 −0.47 ± 0.05 0.31 ± 0.07 0.13 ± 0.17 0.99 ± 0.01 −0.22 ± 0.07 −0.14 ± 0.06 
Fasting glucose −0.27 ± 0.06 −0.21 ± 0.06 −0.28 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.06 0.28 ± 0.06 −0.02 ± 0.19 −0.32 ± 0.06 −0.12 ± 0.05 
Fasting insulin 0.12 ± 0.07 0.88 ± 0.01 −0.45 ± 0.05 0.99 ± 0.01 0.36 ± 0.06 0.25 ± 0.06 −0.23 ± 0.06 −0.21 ± 0.05 
DI 0.53 ± 0.05 0.21 ± 0.16 0.64 ± 0.04 −0.09 ± 0.17 −0.59 ± 0.12 0.01 ± 0.18 0.32 ± 0.07 0.99 ± 0.15 
SG 0.13 ± 0.06 0.02 ± 0.27 0.31 ± 0.05 −0.05 ± 0.28 −0.15 ± 0.29 −0.11 ± 0.28 0.36 ± 0.05 0.07 ± 0.05 
Environmental correlations (ρE)Genetic correlations (ρG)
AIRgHOMABSIHOMAIRFasting glucoseFasting insulinDISG
AIRg 0.47 ± 0.07 0.73 ± 0.08 −0.10 ± 0.07 0.60 ± 0.12 −0.38 ± 0.12 0.68 ± 0.12 0.63 ± 0.09 0.52 ± 0.21 
HOMAB 0.30 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.07 −0.34 ± 0.06 0.81 ± 0.02 −0.40 ± 0.15 0.88 ± 0.04 −0.02 ± 0.07 −0.01 ± 0.06 
SI −0.44 ± 0.12 −0.57 ± 0.12 0.34 ± 0.06 −0.73 ± 0.09 −0.23 ± 0.15 −0.71 ± 0.10 0.38 ± 0.013 0.55 ± 0.22 
HOMAIR 0.12 ± 0.07 0.84 ± 0.05 −0.47 ± 0.05 0.31 ± 0.07 0.13 ± 0.17 0.99 ± 0.01 −0.22 ± 0.07 −0.14 ± 0.06 
Fasting glucose −0.27 ± 0.06 −0.21 ± 0.06 −0.28 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.06 0.28 ± 0.06 −0.02 ± 0.19 −0.32 ± 0.06 −0.12 ± 0.05 
Fasting insulin 0.12 ± 0.07 0.88 ± 0.01 −0.45 ± 0.05 0.99 ± 0.01 0.36 ± 0.06 0.25 ± 0.06 −0.23 ± 0.06 −0.21 ± 0.05 
DI 0.53 ± 0.05 0.21 ± 0.16 0.64 ± 0.04 −0.09 ± 0.17 −0.59 ± 0.12 0.01 ± 0.18 0.32 ± 0.07 0.99 ± 0.15 
SG 0.13 ± 0.06 0.02 ± 0.27 0.31 ± 0.05 −0.05 ± 0.28 −0.15 ± 0.29 −0.11 ± 0.28 0.36 ± 0.05 0.07 ± 0.05 

Heritability estimates with SEs are given on the diagonal in boldface type. Genetic and environmental correlations with SEs are provided above and below the diagonal, respectively.

Table 3

Heritability estimates with genetic and environmental correlations for T2D-related quantitative traits in BetaGene adjusting for age, sex, and BMI

Environmental correlations (ρE)Genetic correlations (ρG)
AIRgHOMABSIHOMAIRFasting glucoseFasting insulinDISG
AIRg 0.56 ± 0.08 0.28 ± 0.11 −0.24 ± 0.08 0.49 ± 0.10 0.07 ± 0.10 0.48 ± 0.10 0.85 ± 0.05 0.76 ± 0.12 
HOMAB 0.31 ± 0.10 0.55 ± 0.07 −0.29 ± 0.08 0.70 ± 0.04 −0.34 ± 0.09 0.81 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.10 −0.05 ± 0.09 
SI −0.72 ± 0.11 −0.61 ± 0.11 0.33 ± 0.08 −0.83 ± 0.09 −0.23 ± 0.13 −0.84 ± 0.09 −0.24 ± 0.21 −0.60 ± 0.25 
HOMAIR −0.11 ± 0.11 0.78 ± 0.04 −0.27 ± 0.07 0.48 ± 0.07 0.29 ± 0.10 0.99 ± 0.01 −0.26 ± 0.09 −0.10 ± 0.08 
Fasting glucose −0.45 ± 0.09 −0.35 ± 0.08 −0.03 ± 0.08 0.35 ± 0.07 0.49 ± 0.06 0.25 ± 0.10 −0.46 ± 0.07 −0.10 ± 0.08 
Fasting insulin −0.07 ± 0.11 0.76 ± 0.04 −0.28 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.01 0.29 ± 0.08 0.50 ± 0.07 −0.23 ± 0.09 −0.11 ± 0.09 
DI 0.68 ± 0.05 −0.13 ± 0.13 0.43 ± 0.07 −0.01 ± 0.14 −0.03 ± 0.12 −0.02 ± 0.14 0.44 ± 0.09 0.62 ± 0.12 
SG 0.04 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.16 0.46 ± 0.07 0.02 ± 0.16 −0.16 ± 0.14 0.03 ± 0.16 0.41 ± 0.07 0.28 ± 0.09 
Environmental correlations (ρE)Genetic correlations (ρG)
AIRgHOMABSIHOMAIRFasting glucoseFasting insulinDISG
AIRg 0.56 ± 0.08 0.28 ± 0.11 −0.24 ± 0.08 0.49 ± 0.10 0.07 ± 0.10 0.48 ± 0.10 0.85 ± 0.05 0.76 ± 0.12 
HOMAB 0.31 ± 0.10 0.55 ± 0.07 −0.29 ± 0.08 0.70 ± 0.04 −0.34 ± 0.09 0.81 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.10 −0.05 ± 0.09 
SI −0.72 ± 0.11 −0.61 ± 0.11 0.33 ± 0.08 −0.83 ± 0.09 −0.23 ± 0.13 −0.84 ± 0.09 −0.24 ± 0.21 −0.60 ± 0.25 
HOMAIR −0.11 ± 0.11 0.78 ± 0.04 −0.27 ± 0.07 0.48 ± 0.07 0.29 ± 0.10 0.99 ± 0.01 −0.26 ± 0.09 −0.10 ± 0.08 
Fasting glucose −0.45 ± 0.09 −0.35 ± 0.08 −0.03 ± 0.08 0.35 ± 0.07 0.49 ± 0.06 0.25 ± 0.10 −0.46 ± 0.07 −0.10 ± 0.08 
Fasting insulin −0.07 ± 0.11 0.76 ± 0.04 −0.28 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.01 0.29 ± 0.08 0.50 ± 0.07 −0.23 ± 0.09 −0.11 ± 0.09 
DI 0.68 ± 0.05 −0.13 ± 0.13 0.43 ± 0.07 −0.01 ± 0.14 −0.03 ± 0.12 −0.02 ± 0.14 0.44 ± 0.09 0.62 ± 0.12 
SG 0.04 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.16 0.46 ± 0.07 0.02 ± 0.16 −0.16 ± 0.14 0.03 ± 0.16 0.41 ± 0.07 0.28 ± 0.09 

Heritability estimates with SEs are given on the diagonal in boldface type. Genetic and environmental correlations with SEs are provided above and below the diagonal, respectively.

Heritability estimates from IRASFS and BetaGene for dynamic and basal measures of glucose homeostasis are presented in Tables 2 and 3 (with BMI adjustment) and in Supplementary Table 1 (without BMI adjustment). The dynamic measure of β-cell function, assessed by AIRg, was the most consistent and highly heritable (h2 = 0.47–0.56) measure assessed. In comparison, basal measures of β-cell function were lower in IRASFS (h2 = 0.34) but comparable in BetaGene (h2 = 0.55), which could be attributed to sample ascertainment differences between population-based and a family history of T2D, respectively. Measures of insulin resistance were also heritable (h2 = 0.33–0.34). In contrast to HOMAB, basal heritability estimates of insulin resistance were higher in BetaGene (h2 = 0.48) but again comparable in IRASFS (h2 = 0.31). Furthermore, an examination of the heritability estimates and associated SEs for the dynamic and basal measures revealed that SI had the most consistent heritability estimates between the two studies, while the basal measures (HOMAB, HOMAIR, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin) had nonoverlapping point estimates within the SE-defined CIs.

Significant genetic association results observed among the 57 SNPs with dynamic (AIRg, SI, DI and SG) and basal (HOMAB, HOMAIR, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin) glucose homeostasis traits are summarized in Table 4 (full results for SNP-trait combinations are presented in Supplementary Table 2). The most significant associations observed were among two modestly correlated SNPs, rs10830963 and rs1387153 (r2 = 0.69), at the melatonin receptor 1B gene (MTNR1B) with AIRg that reached genome-wide significance (P < 5.00 × 10−8). The MTNR1B locus was initially identified as a locus for fasting glucose and subsequently evaluated for association with T2D (30). Among the GUARDIAN cohorts, evidence of association between MTNR1B SNPs and other traits, such as fasting glucose, was comparatively modest (P > 1.50 × 10−6), and no evidence of association was observed with a basal measure of β-cell function (HOMAB, P > 0.020).

Table 4

Previously reported T2D-susceptibility loci associated with T2D-related quantitative traits (P < 8.77 × 10−4) in GUARDIAN

LocusSNP (effect allele)AIRg
HOMAB
SI
HOMAIR
Fasting glucose
Fasting insulin
DI
SG
β ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADD
GCKR rs780094 (A) 0.50 ± 0.53 0.10 0.05 ± 0.10 0.22 0.03 ± 0.06 0.12 0.00 ± 0.07 0.98 −0.37 ± 0.53 0.18 −0.01 ± 0.10 0.75 0.71 ± 0.74 0.080 0.12 ± 0.05 5.38 × 10−6 
G6PC2 rs560887 (A) −0.95 ± 0.72 0.011 0.28 ± 0.13 1.25 × 10−4 −0.03 ± 0.08 0.70 0.12 ± 0.10 0.031 −0.83 ± 0.72 0.033 0.18 ± 0.13 0.013 −1.98 ± 1.00 2.30 × 10−4 −0.04 ± 0.06 0.15 
ADCY5 rs11708067 (G) 1.07 ± 0.59 2.97 × 10−4 0.13 ± 0.11 0.030 0.07 ± 0.07 0.43 0.05 ± 0.08 0.23 −0.43 ± 0.57 0.18 0.08 ± 0.10 0.13 1.86 ± 0.81 1.57 × 10−5 0.06 ± 0.05 0.042 
IGF2BP2 rs4402960 (A) −0.74 ± 0.57 0.018 0.01 ± 0.10 0.84 −0.07 ± 0.06 0.47 0.04 ± 0.08 0.43 0.39 ± 0.56 0.18 0.04 ± 0.10 0.52 −1.60 ± 0.80 4.01 × 10−4 −0.08 ± 0.05 0.0042 
IGF2BP2 rs1470579 (C) −0.71 ± 0.57 0.023 0.03 ± 0.10 0.61 −0.07 ± 0.06 0.48 0.04 ± 0.08 0.34 0.32 ± 0.56 0.24 0.05 ± 0.10 0.44 −1.58 ± 0.79 4.93 × 10−4 −0.08 ± 0.05 0.0091 
CDKAL1 rs7754840 (C) −1.32 ± 0.55 1.07 × 10−5 −0.15 ± 0.10 0.010 0.11 ± 0.06 0.0013 −0.09 ± 0.08 0.034 0.35 ± 0.51 0.21 −0.11 ± 0.10 0.033 −0.55 ± 0.76 0.15 −0.03 ± 0.05 0.15 
CDKAL1 rs7756992 (G) −1.12 ± 0.55 2.49 × 10−4 −0.14 ± 0.10 0.015 0.10 ± 0.06 0.017 −0.07 ± 0.08 0.11 0.45 ± 0.54 0.13 −0.09 ± 0.10 0.084 −0.36 ± 0.77 0.30 −0.04 ± 0.05 0.12 
CDKAL1 rs9368222 (A) −1.46 ± 0.58 4.74 × 10−6 −0.15 ± 0.10 0.014 0.11 ± 0.06 0.0090 −0.09 ± 0.08 0.048 0.41 ± 0.57 0.19 −0.10 ± 0.10 0.070 −0.87 ± 0.81 0.032 −0.07 ± 0.05 0.010 
TCF7L2 rs7903146 (A) −1.12 ± 0.59 5.10 × 10−4 −0.09 ± 0.11 0.16 −0.03 ± 0.06 0.69 −0.01 ± 0.08 0.87 0.62 ± 0.58 0.057 −0.01 ± 0.11 0.85 −1.50 ± 0.82 0.0011 −0.01 ± 0.05 0.72 
KCNQ1 rs2237892 (A) 0.86 ± 0.58 6.13 × 10−3 −0.11 ± 0.10 0.090 0.01 ± 0.07 0.93 −0.09 ± 0.08 0.031 −0.18 ± 0.57 0.62 −0.12 ± 0.10 0.018 1.58 ± 0.81 3.14 × 10−4 0.01 ± 0.05 0.88 
KCNQ1 rs163184 (C) −1.00 ± 0.50 2.70 × 10−4 0.03 ± 0.09 0.75 0.04 ± 0.06 0.44 0.04 ± 0.07 0.22 0.33 ± 0.49 0.31 0.05 ± 0.09 0.29 −1.10 ± 0.69 0.0037 0.00 ± 0.04 0.97 
KCNQ1 rs2237895 (C) −1.06 ± 0.50 1.35 × 10−4 −0.01 ± 0.09 0.74 0.04 ± 0.06 0.24 0.02 ± 0.07 0.49 0.38 ± 0.50 0.22 0.02 ± 0.09 0.53 −1.11 ± 0.70 0.0034 −0.01 ± 0.05 0.79 
ARAP1/CENTD2 rs1552224 (C) 1.94 ± 1.03 8.53 × 10−4 0.19 ± 0.19 0.11 −0.07 ± 0.11 0.39 0.10 ± 0.14 0.20 −0.24 ± 1.04 0.60 0.12 ± 0.19 0.26 2.14 ± 1.43 0.0094 −0.03 ± 0.09 0.59 
MTNR1B rs1387153 (A) −2.06 ± 0.60 1.38 × 10−9 −0.15 ± 0.11 0.020 −0.13 ± 0.07 0.089 −0.02 ± 0.08 0.63 1.13 ± 0.59 4.73 × 10−4 −0.07 ± 0.11 0.30 −3.26 ± 0.83 1.40 × 10−11 −0.10 ± 0.05 6.85 × 10−4 
MTNR1B rs10830963 (G) −2.31 ± 0.60 9.46 × 10−12 −0.15 ± 0.11 0.021 −0.13 ± 0.07 0.16 0.03 ± 0.08 0.58 1.60 ± 0.59 1.50 × 10−6 0.00 ± 0.11 1.00 −3.71 ± 0.83 1.11 × 10−14 −0.12 ± 0.05 1.09 × 10−4 
LocusSNP (effect allele)AIRg
HOMAB
SI
HOMAIR
Fasting glucose
Fasting insulin
DI
SG
β ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADDβ ± SDPADD
GCKR rs780094 (A) 0.50 ± 0.53 0.10 0.05 ± 0.10 0.22 0.03 ± 0.06 0.12 0.00 ± 0.07 0.98 −0.37 ± 0.53 0.18 −0.01 ± 0.10 0.75 0.71 ± 0.74 0.080 0.12 ± 0.05 5.38 × 10−6 
G6PC2 rs560887 (A) −0.95 ± 0.72 0.011 0.28 ± 0.13 1.25 × 10−4 −0.03 ± 0.08 0.70 0.12 ± 0.10 0.031 −0.83 ± 0.72 0.033 0.18 ± 0.13 0.013 −1.98 ± 1.00 2.30 × 10−4 −0.04 ± 0.06 0.15 
ADCY5 rs11708067 (G) 1.07 ± 0.59 2.97 × 10−4 0.13 ± 0.11 0.030 0.07 ± 0.07 0.43 0.05 ± 0.08 0.23 −0.43 ± 0.57 0.18 0.08 ± 0.10 0.13 1.86 ± 0.81 1.57 × 10−5 0.06 ± 0.05 0.042 
IGF2BP2 rs4402960 (A) −0.74 ± 0.57 0.018 0.01 ± 0.10 0.84 −0.07 ± 0.06 0.47 0.04 ± 0.08 0.43 0.39 ± 0.56 0.18 0.04 ± 0.10 0.52 −1.60 ± 0.80 4.01 × 10−4 −0.08 ± 0.05 0.0042 
IGF2BP2 rs1470579 (C) −0.71 ± 0.57 0.023 0.03 ± 0.10 0.61 −0.07 ± 0.06 0.48 0.04 ± 0.08 0.34 0.32 ± 0.56 0.24 0.05 ± 0.10 0.44 −1.58 ± 0.79 4.93 × 10−4 −0.08 ± 0.05 0.0091 
CDKAL1 rs7754840 (C) −1.32 ± 0.55 1.07 × 10−5 −0.15 ± 0.10 0.010 0.11 ± 0.06 0.0013 −0.09 ± 0.08 0.034 0.35 ± 0.51 0.21 −0.11 ± 0.10 0.033 −0.55 ± 0.76 0.15 −0.03 ± 0.05 0.15 
CDKAL1 rs7756992 (G) −1.12 ± 0.55 2.49 × 10−4 −0.14 ± 0.10 0.015 0.10 ± 0.06 0.017 −0.07 ± 0.08 0.11 0.45 ± 0.54 0.13 −0.09 ± 0.10 0.084 −0.36 ± 0.77 0.30 −0.04 ± 0.05 0.12 
CDKAL1 rs9368222 (A) −1.46 ± 0.58 4.74 × 10−6 −0.15 ± 0.10 0.014 0.11 ± 0.06 0.0090 −0.09 ± 0.08 0.048 0.41 ± 0.57 0.19 −0.10 ± 0.10 0.070 −0.87 ± 0.81 0.032 −0.07 ± 0.05 0.010 
TCF7L2 rs7903146 (A) −1.12 ± 0.59 5.10 × 10−4 −0.09 ± 0.11 0.16 −0.03 ± 0.06 0.69 −0.01 ± 0.08 0.87 0.62 ± 0.58 0.057 −0.01 ± 0.11 0.85 −1.50 ± 0.82 0.0011 −0.01 ± 0.05 0.72 
KCNQ1 rs2237892 (A) 0.86 ± 0.58 6.13 × 10−3 −0.11 ± 0.10 0.090 0.01 ± 0.07 0.93 −0.09 ± 0.08 0.031 −0.18 ± 0.57 0.62 −0.12 ± 0.10 0.018 1.58 ± 0.81 3.14 × 10−4 0.01 ± 0.05 0.88 
KCNQ1 rs163184 (C) −1.00 ± 0.50 2.70 × 10−4 0.03 ± 0.09 0.75 0.04 ± 0.06 0.44 0.04 ± 0.07 0.22 0.33 ± 0.49 0.31 0.05 ± 0.09 0.29 −1.10 ± 0.69 0.0037 0.00 ± 0.04 0.97 
KCNQ1 rs2237895 (C) −1.06 ± 0.50 1.35 × 10−4 −0.01 ± 0.09 0.74 0.04 ± 0.06 0.24 0.02 ± 0.07 0.49 0.38 ± 0.50 0.22 0.02 ± 0.09 0.53 −1.11 ± 0.70 0.0034 −0.01 ± 0.05 0.79 
ARAP1/CENTD2 rs1552224 (C) 1.94 ± 1.03 8.53 × 10−4 0.19 ± 0.19 0.11 −0.07 ± 0.11 0.39 0.10 ± 0.14 0.20 −0.24 ± 1.04 0.60 0.12 ± 0.19 0.26 2.14 ± 1.43 0.0094 −0.03 ± 0.09 0.59 
MTNR1B rs1387153 (A) −2.06 ± 0.60 1.38 × 10−9 −0.15 ± 0.11 0.020 −0.13 ± 0.07 0.089 −0.02 ± 0.08 0.63 1.13 ± 0.59 4.73 × 10−4 −0.07 ± 0.11 0.30 −3.26 ± 0.83 1.40 × 10−11 −0.10 ± 0.05 6.85 × 10−4 
MTNR1B rs10830963 (G) −2.31 ± 0.60 9.46 × 10−12 −0.15 ± 0.11 0.021 −0.13 ± 0.07 0.16 0.03 ± 0.08 0.58 1.60 ± 0.59 1.50 × 10−6 0.00 ± 0.11 1.00 −3.71 ± 0.83 1.11 × 10−14 −0.12 ± 0.05 1.09 × 10−4 

Data are means ± SE unless otherwise indicated. P values < 8.77 × 10−4 are shown in boldface type.

The majority of significant associations (Bonferroni-corrected P < 8.77 × 10−4) among the 57 previously reported T2D-associated SNPs were with AIRg (n = 10), with eight SNPs showing consistent association of the T2D-associated allele with decreased β-cell function. Further, 13 additional T2D variants were nominally associated with AIRg (P < 0.05), with eight SNPs showing a consistent direction of effect. Comparison of the effect sizes for measures of β-cell function using the Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed a significant nonzero shift toward AIRg (P = 7.0 × 10−4). The proportion of variants associated with AIRg (17.5%) was more than expected by chance (P = 1.12 × 10−20), consistent with the previous observation of enrichment of T2D-associated loci that contribute to β-cell function.

In addition to MTNR1B, there was a consistent pattern of variants showing association with AIRg but little or no association with the basal measure of insulin response, i.e., HOMAB, including KCNQ1 and TCF7L2, which is consistent with prior literature (3133). Strikingly, only a single variant at the glucose-6-phosphatase catalytic subunit gene (G6PC2) (rs560887, P = 1.25 × 10−4) showed nominal evidence of association with basal estimates of β-cell function (HOMAB).

Measures of insulin resistance, both dynamic (SI) and basal (HOMAIR), failed to show evidence of association among the 57 T2D-associated SNPs. More nominal evidence of association (P < 0.05) was observed among 11 SNPs with SI (P = 0.48–0.0013) and 10 SNPs with HOMAIR (P = 0.048–0.0023), only six of which overlapped between traits. Notably, variants in the potassium inwardly-rectifying channel gene (KCNJ11) were nominally associated with the dynamic measure of insulin resistance (SI) (rs5219, P = 0.032). Effect size comparisons among insulin resistance loci using the Wilcoxon signed rank test were nonsignificant (P = 0.60).

Among additional phenotypes obtained from the FSIGT, three variants at two loci were significantly associated with SG, which captures the ability of glucose to enhance its own disposal (34). SNP rs780094 (P = 5.38 × 10−6) is located in the glucokinase regulator gene (GCKR), and SNPs rs10830963 (P = 1.09 × 10−4) and rs1387153 (P = 6.85 × 10−4) are located near the MTNR1B locus.

Seven variants were significantly associated with DI, which is thought to be a good predictor of diabetes onset (35) taking into account the contributions of both insulin sensitivity and response, SI and AIRg, respectively. In each case the association with DI was one to two orders of magnitude more significant than that observed with AIRg. Notably, two variants at the MTNR1B locus were more strongly associated with DI (rs10830963, P = 1.11 × 10−14 and rs1387153, P = 1.40 × 10−11) than AIRg despite the lack of contribution from SI (P > 0.089). Two additional variants that were previously identified through association with fasting glucose, rs11708067 in the adenylate cyclase 5 gene (ADCY5) (36) and rs560887 in the glucose-6-phosphatase 2 gene (G6PC2) (37), were also associated with DI. Notably, neither SNP was significantly associated with fasting glucose (P = 0.18 and 0.033, respectively). Variants in KCNQ1 and insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA–binding protein 2 gene (IGF2BP2) were also significantly associated with DI (P < 4.93 × 10−4).

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of T2D have identified >80 susceptibility loci to date (8,9,26,3841). However, there is a diminishing return on investment, as contemporary studies require increasingly large sample sizes; e.g., the most recent analysis by Morris et al. (9) analyzed 34,840 case and 114,981 control subjects. In an effort to reduce the phenotypic heterogeneity, quantitative intermediate phenotypes of glucose homeostasis have been assessed. These studies have focused most frequently on basal measures of glucose homeostasis derived from easily obtained fasting measures. These genetic studies have confirmed the contribution of 53 loci, 33 of which impact T2D risk, but required similarly large sample sizes; e.g., Scott et al. (10) analyzed 133,010 individuals. Even when such large samples are used, much of the genetic component of T2D and its underlying glucometabolic phenotypes remain unknown. This challenge is amplified in populations such as African Americans and Mexican Americans where available samples sizes are appreciably smaller and genetic admixture complicates analysis. The current study demonstrates the potential value of further refining quantitative intermediate phenotypes of T2D through analysis of dynamic quantitative measures of insulin sensitivity and β-cell function.

Basal and dynamic measures of glucose homeostasis exhibit a differential genetic basis. Basal metabolic measures are derived from fasting measures of glucose and insulin via the HOMA approach, while dynamic phenotypes characterize an elicited response. For example, in this study AIRg and SI were measured in response to an intravenous glucose load using the minimal modeling approach. Extending our previous work (42) with an increased sample size and inclusion of contemporary genetic data, we observed that SI was significantly correlated with HOMAIRG, IRASFS = −0.73; ρG, BetaGene = −0.83) with a stronger contribution from fasting insulin (ρG, IRASFS = −0.71; ρG, BetaGene = −0.84) compared with fasting glucose (ρG, IRASFS = −0.23; ρG, BetaGene = −0.23). In IRASFS, heritability of SI (h2 = 0.34) was modestly greater than that for HOMAIR (h2 = 0.31) with genetic background accounting for a greater proportion of SI, while environmental factors made a stronger contribution to HOMAIR. Notably, a direct assessment of the heritability and 95% CIs for basal and dynamic measures revealed that SI was more similar between studies than HOMAIR. Although not assessed herein, basal measures of insulin sensitivity have failed to adequately capture longitudinal change despite good correlation in the cross-sectional setting (43). As expected, the measures of β-cell function were positively correlated (AIRg-HOMAB ρG, IRASFS = 0.73 and BetaGene = 0.28) with a relatively lower correlation observed among the component fasting measures, particularly fasting glucose (AIRg–fasting glucose ρG, IRASFS = −0.38 and BetaGene = 0.07), suggesting that the result is driven by the contribution of fasting insulin (AIRg–fasting insulin ρG, IRASFS = 0.68 and BetaGene = 0.48).

Using previously identified T2D-susceptibility variants, the current study demonstrates the value of high-quality dynamic measures of glucose homeostasis. Most notable among these observations is the association of MTNR1B with AIRg. This locus was first identified in a fasting glucose GWAS of 36,610 individuals of European descent (rs10830963, minor allele frequency =0.30, P = 3.2 × 10−50) (30) and was only subsequently attributed to association with T2D in analyses testing up to 40,655 case and 87,022 control subjects (rs10830963, P = 8.0 × 10−13) (36). Comparatively, by targeting a precise measure of β-cell function, i.e., first-phase insulin response (AIRg), we identified genome-wide significant association with this locus (rs10830963, P = 9.46 × 10−12) in a sample size of just 2,548 subjects, despite more nominal associations with fasting glucose (P = 1.50 × 10−6) (22). This association is consistent with the reported biology, i.e., the colocalization of MTNR1B with insulin in human islets (44). This pattern of superior performance of AIRg was repeated for additional well-established T2D loci KCNQ1 and TCF7L2, which attained study-wise levels of statistical significance with much more nominal evidence of association with basal measures. Impairment of insulin response is believed to be the mechanism of action for both KCNQ1 (32,33) and TCF7L2 (31), although these results suggest a direct role in first-phase insulin response as opposed to significant contributions from changes in incretin secretion, as has been suggested for KCNQ1 (32). To compliment these dynamic measures of glucose homeostasis, we also evaluated DI, which is the product of SI × AIRg. Notably, this measure outperformed component phenotypes with comparatively more significant associations observed at the IGF2BP2 locus (AIRgP < 0.023 vs. DI P < 4.93 × 10−4) and may indicate a more direct involvement in physiological cross talk mechanisms used to maintain glucose homeostasis.

Huyghe et al. (45) have genetically assessed a battery of quantitative intermediate phenotypes characterizing insulin processing, secretion, and glycemic traits in the Metabolic Syndrome in Men (METSIM) study. While the approach herein used metabolic phenotypes derived from the FSIGT, clinical testing in the METSIM study used the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). This study identified associations with fasting proinsulin levels at previously reported GWAS loci as well as novel genes associated with fasting proinsulin and the insulinogenic index. It is noteworthy that association with MTNR1B was not reported. In contrast, Prokopenko et al. (46) identified significant association at MTNR1B with decreased insulin secretion (corrected insulin response [CIR], P = 6.71 × 10−28) obtained from the OGTT in a comparable sample size from the Meta-Analysis of Glucose- and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC). The OGTT-derived measure of insulin secretion represents stimulated response to oral glucose administration and may highlight additional component pathways toward development of the overt phenotype of T2D with variable contribution by MTNR1B.

Among additional novel dynamic phenotypes obtained from the FSIGT, the ability of glucose to enhance its own disposal is captured in the form of SG. Among significant results, SNP rs780094 located in the glucokinase regulator gene (GCKR) was associated with SG (P = 5.38 × 10−6). This locus is supported biologically by glucokinase, which catalyzes the ATP-dependent phosphorylation of glucose, the first and rate-limiting step in liver glucose metabolism (47). Extending upon the current literature, we observed association of MTNR1B rs10830963 with SG (P = 1.09 × 10−4), which warrants additional follow-up studies for a role in glucose tolerance, as has been previously suggested (48). However, among the candidates evaluated, G6PC2 has been implicated in the alteration of hepatic glucose production (49,50). Although no association was observed with SG (P = 0.15) that would represent the most proximal phenotype in GUARDIAN, further work is needed to accurately measure this metabolic pathway.

The observations described here suggest that basal and dynamic measures, the latter resulting from either oral (OGTT) or intravenous (FSIGT) stimulation, provide different estimates with differing levels of sensitivity to discrete elements of glucose homeostasis. Thus, T2D risk polymorphisms may selectively be associated with distinct measures. While these measures are correlated, the association results with AIRg are striking, with rs10830963 having association P values 4 orders of magnitude stronger than fasting glucose and 10 orders of magnitude stronger than HOMAB. Multiple other T2D variants (e.g., KCNQ1, TCF7L2) showed similar if less dramatic differences. These results suggest that there is discrete involvement of these genes in first-phase insulin response. In a similar vein, Huyghe et al. (45) identified a variant associated with insulin processing (C-peptide), a phenotype that is not available in the GUARDIAN cohorts. The utility of this type of approach for understanding the genetic contribution to disease progression is the proximity of the phenotypes to the underlying genetic variation. Thus, increased power is observed by reducing phenotypic heterogeneity; e.g., insulin resistance precedes development of impaired insulin response, yet few studies of T2D as a qualitative trait assess insulin resistance among control subjects. Together these studies are consistent with multiple metabolic contributions to T2D that are revealed and available for investigation only when detailed physiological phenotyping has been performed.

Further studies of precise metabolic phenotyping are needed to identify informative intermediate phenotypes of glucose homeostasis, and complimentary studies built upon this knowledge are needed, particularly in ethnic minority populations who are disproportionately burdened by T2D. Although more costly to attain, these measures, when analyzed in a comparatively small study population, yielded significant results that could be considered physiologically “closer” to the causal pathway. More broadly, the results presented here argue for detailed metabolic phenotyping in the further search for diabetogenic loci and as a way to gain insight into the discrete mechanisms of action.

Acknowledgments. The authors thank the investigators, staff, and participants of the studies for their valuable contributions.

Funding. This research was supported by the GUARDIAN study through funding provided by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) (DK-085175) and from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grants HL047887, HL047889, HL047890, and HL047902 for IRAS and HL060944, HL061019, and HL060919 for IRASFS; NIDDK grant DK-061628; and the American Diabetes Association Distinguished Clinical Scientist Award for BetaGene. The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by National Center for Advancing Translational Science grant UL1-TR-000124 (Clinical and Translational Science Institute) and NIDDK grant DK-063491 (Diabetes Research Center). Computing resources were provided in part by the Wake Forest School of Medicine Center for Public Health Genomics.

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. N.D.P. and D.W.B. contributed to the writing of the manuscript. N.D.P., L.E.W., J.I.R., R.M.W., and D.W.B. contributed to the study design, management, and coordination of the project. C.D.L., N.W., and A.H.X. contributed to the initial analysis in GUARDIAN. C.D.L. contributed to meta-analysis of data. All authors gave final approval of the manuscript. T.A.B., H.A., R.N.B., L.J.R., Y.-D.I.C., M.O.G., and T.F. contributed to the phenotyping. T.H. and K.D.T. contributed to the genotyping in GUARDIAN. N.D.P. and D.W.B. are the guarantors of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Prior Presentation. Parts of this study were presented in abstract form at the 73rd Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, Chicago, IL, 21–25 June 2013.

1.
DeFronzo
RA
,
Tobin
JD
,
Andres
R
.
Glucose clamp technique: a method for quantifying insulin secretion and resistance
.
Am J Physiol
1979
;
237
:
E214
E223
[PubMed]
2.
Bergman
RN
,
Ider
YZ
,
Bowden
CR
,
Cobelli
C
.
Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity
.
Am J Physiol
1979
;
236
:
E667
E677
[PubMed]
3.
Saad
MF
,
Anderson
RL
,
Laws
A
, et al
.
A comparison between the minimal model and the glucose clamp in the assessment of insulin sensitivity across the spectrum of glucose tolerance. Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
.
Diabetes
1994
;
43
:
1114
1121
[PubMed]
4.
Beard
JC
,
Bergman
RN
,
Ward
WK
,
Porte
D
 Jr
.
The insulin sensitivity index in nondiabetic man. Correlation between clamp-derived and IVGTT-derived values
.
Diabetes
1986
;
35
:
362
369
[PubMed]
5.
Bergman
RN
,
Prager
R
,
Volund
A
,
Olefsky
JM
.
Equivalence of the insulin sensitivity index in man derived by the minimal model method and the euglycemic glucose clamp
.
J Clin Invest
1987
;
79
:
790
800
[PubMed]
6.
Korytkowski
MT
,
Berga
SL
,
Horwitz
MJ
.
Comparison of the minimal model and the hyperglycemic clamp for measuring insulin sensitivity and acute insulin response to glucose
.
Metabolism
1995
;
44
:
1121
1125
[PubMed]
7.
Mohlke
KL
,
Boehnke
M
.
Recent advances in understanding the genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes
.
Hum Mol Genet
2015
;
24
:
R85
R92
[PubMed]
8.
Mahajan
A
,
Go
MJ
,
Zhang
W
, et al.;
DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium
;
Asian Genetic Epidemiology Network Type 2 Diabetes (AGEN-T2D) Consortium
;
South Asian Type 2 Diabetes (SAT2D) Consortium
;
Mexican American Type 2 Diabetes (MAT2D) Consortium
;
Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Exploration by Nex-generation sequencing in muylti-Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES) Consortium
.
Genome-wide trans-ancestry meta-analysis provides insight into the genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes susceptibility
.
Nat Genet
2014
;
46
:
234
244
[PubMed]
9.
Morris
AP
,
Voight
BF
,
Teslovich
TM
, et al.;
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium
;
Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC) Investigators
;
Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (GIANT) Consortium
;
Asian Genetic Epidemiology Network–Type 2 Diabetes (AGEN-T2D) Consortium
;
South Asian Type 2 Diabetes (SAT2D) Consortium
;
DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium
.
Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
981
990
[PubMed]
10.
Scott
RA
,
Lagou
V
,
Welch
RP
, et al.;
DIAbetes Genetics Replication and Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium
.
Large-scale association analyses identify new loci influencing glycemic traits and provide insight into the underlying biological pathways
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
991
1005
[PubMed]
11.
Meigs J, Hivert M-F, Morris A, et al. Genome-wide association with fasting glucose and insulin in 20,200 African Americans suggests new quantitative trait loci and allelic heterogeneity at known loci: the African American Glucose and Insulin Genetic Epidemiology (AAGILE) Consortium. Late-breaking abstract presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, 22–26 October 2013, Boston, MA
12.
Bergman
RN
,
Ader
M
,
Huecking
K
,
Van Citters
G
.
Accurate assessment of beta-cell function: the hyperbolic correction
.
Diabetes
2002
;
51
(
Suppl. 1
):
S212
S220
[PubMed]
13.
DeFronzo
RA
.
Lilly lecture 1987. The triumvirate: beta-cell, muscle, liver. A collusion responsible for NIDDM
.
Diabetes
1988
;
37
:
667
687
[PubMed]
14.
Haffner
SM
,
D’Agostino
R
,
Saad
MF
, et al
.
Increased insulin resistance and insulin secretion in nondiabetic African-Americans and Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites. The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
.
Diabetes
1996
;
45
:
742
748
[PubMed]
15.
Haffner
SM
,
Howard
G
,
Mayer
E
, et al
.
Insulin sensitivity and acute insulin response in African-Americans, non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics with NIDDM: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
.
Diabetes
1997
;
46
:
63
69
[PubMed]
16.
Muoio
DM
,
Newgard
CB
.
Mechanisms of disease: molecular and metabolic mechanisms of insulin resistance and beta-cell failure in type 2 diabetes
.
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol
2008
;
9
:
193
205
[PubMed]
17.
Goodarzi
MO
,
Langefeld
CD
,
Xiang
AH
, et al
.
Insulin sensitivity and insulin clearance are heritable and have strong genetic correlation in Mexican Americans
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2014
;
22
:
1157
1164
[PubMed]
18.
Welch
S
,
Gebhart
SS
,
Bergman
RN
,
Phillips
LS
.
Minimal model analysis of intravenous glucose tolerance test-derived insulin sensitivity in diabetic subjects
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
1990
;
71
:
1508
1518
[PubMed]
19.
Steil
GM
,
Volund
A
,
Kahn
SE
,
Bergman
RN
.
Reduced sample number for calculation of insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness from the minimal model. Suitability for use in population studies
.
Diabetes
1993
;
42
:
250
256
[PubMed]
20.
Pacini
G
,
Bergman
RN
.
MINMOD: a computer program to calculate insulin sensitivity and pancreatic responsivity from the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test
.
Comput Methods Programs Biomed
1986
;
23
:
113
122
[PubMed]
21.
Levy
JC
,
Matthews
DR
,
Hermans
MP
.
Correct homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) evaluation uses the computer program
.
Diabetes Care
1998
;
21
:
2191
2192
[PubMed]
22.
Palmer
ND
,
Goodarzi
MO
,
Langefeld
CD
, et al
.
Genetic variants associated with quantitative glucose homeostasis traits translate to type 2 diabetes in Mexican Americans: the GUARDIAN (Genetics Underlying Diabetes in Hispanics) Consortium
.
Diabetes
2015
;
64
:
1853
1866
[PubMed]
23.
Saxena
R
,
Voight
BF
,
Lyssenko
V
, et al.;
Diabetes Genetics Initiative of Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Lund University, and Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research
.
Genome-wide association analysis identifies loci for type 2 diabetes and triglyceride levels
.
Science
2007
;
316
:
1331
1336
[PubMed]
24.
Scott
LJ
,
Mohlke
KL
,
Bonnycastle
LL
, et al
.
A genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in Finns detects multiple susceptibility variants
.
Science
2007
;
316
:
1341
1345
[PubMed]
25.
Sladek
R
,
Rocheleau
G
,
Rung
J
, et al
.
A genome-wide association study identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes
.
Nature
2007
;
445
:
881
885
[PubMed]
26.
Voight
BF
,
Scott
LJ
,
Steinthorsdottir
V
, et al.;
MAGIC investigators
;
GIANT Consortium
.
Twelve type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci identified through large-scale association analysis
.
Nat Genet
2010
;
42
:
579
589
[PubMed]
27.
Zeggini
E
,
Scott
LJ
,
Saxena
R
, et al.;
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium
.
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data and large-scale replication identifies additional susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes
.
Nat Genet
2008
;
40
:
638
645
[PubMed]
28.
Grove
ML
,
Yu
B
,
Cochran
BJ
, et al
.
Best practices and joint calling of the HumanExome BeadChip: the CHARGE Consortium
.
PLoS One
2013
;
8
:
e68095
[PubMed]
29.
Almasy
L
,
Blangero
J
.
Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees
.
Am J Hum Genet
1998
;
62
:
1198
1211
[PubMed]
30.
Prokopenko
I
,
Langenberg
C
,
Florez
JC
, et al
.
Variants in MTNR1B influence fasting glucose levels
.
Nat Genet
2009
;
41
:
77
81
[PubMed]
31.
Loos
RJ
,
Franks
PW
,
Francis
RW
, et al
.
TCF7L2 polymorphisms modulate proinsulin levels and beta-cell function in a British Europid population
.
Diabetes
2007
;
56
:
1943
1947
[PubMed]
32.
Müssig
K
,
Staiger
H
,
Machicao
F
, et al
.
Association of type 2 diabetes candidate polymorphisms in KCNQ1 with incretin and insulin secretion
.
Diabetes
2009
;
58
:
1715
1720
[PubMed]
33.
Yasuda
K
,
Miyake
K
,
Horikawa
Y
, et al
.
Variants in KCNQ1 are associated with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Nat Genet
2008
;
40
:
1092
1097
[PubMed]
34.
Bergman
RN
.
Lilly lecture 1989. Toward physiological understanding of glucose tolerance. Minimal-model approach
.
Diabetes
1989
;
38
:
1512
1527
[PubMed]
35.
Lorenzo
C
,
Wagenknecht
LE
,
Rewers
MJ
, et al
.
Disposition index, glucose effectiveness, and conversion to type 2 diabetes: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS)
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
2098
2103
[PubMed]
36.
Dupuis
J
,
Langenberg
C
,
Prokopenko
I
, et al.;
DIAGRAM Consortium
;
GIANT Consortium
;
Global BPgen Consortium
;
Anders Hamsten on behalf of Procardis Consortium
;
MAGIC investigators
.
New genetic loci implicated in fasting glucose homeostasis and their impact on type 2 diabetes risk
.
Nat Genet
2010
;
42
:
105
116
[PubMed]
37.
Bouatia-Naji
N
,
Rocheleau
G
,
Van Lommel
L
, et al
.
A polymorphism within the G6PC2 gene is associated with fasting plasma glucose levels
.
Science
2008
;
320
:
1085
1088
[PubMed]
38.
McCarthy
MI
.
Genomics, type 2 diabetes, and obesity
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
363
:
2339
2350
[PubMed]
39.
Kooner
JS
,
Saleheen
D
,
Sim
X
, et al.;
DIAGRAM
;
MuTHER
.
Genome-wide association study in individuals of South Asian ancestry identifies six new type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci
.
Nat Genet
2011
;
43
:
984
989
[PubMed]
40.
Cho
YS
,
Chen
CH
,
Hu
C
, et al.;
DIAGRAM Consortium
;
MuTHER Consortium
.
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies eight new loci for type 2 diabetes in east Asians
.
Nat Genet
2011
;
44
:
67
72
[PubMed]
41.
Palmer
ND
,
McDonough
CW
,
Hicks
PJ
, et al.;
DIAGRAM Consortium
;
MAGIC Investigators
.
A genome-wide association search for type 2 diabetes genes in African Americans
.
PLoS One
2012
;
7
:
e29202
[PubMed]
42.
Bergman
RN
,
Zaccaro
DJ
,
Watanabe
RM
, et al
.
Minimal model-based insulin sensitivity has greater heritability and a different genetic basis than homeostasis model assessment or fasting insulin
.
Diabetes
2003
;
52
:
2168
2174
[PubMed]
43.
Xiang
AH
,
Watanabe
RM
,
Buchanan
TA
.
HOMA and Matsuda indices of insulin sensitivity: poor correlation with minimal model-based estimates of insulin sensitivity in longitudinal settings
.
Diabetologia
2014
;
57
:
334
338
[PubMed]
44.
Lyssenko
V
,
Nagorny
CL
,
Erdos
MR
, et al
.
Common variant in MTNR1B associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and impaired early insulin secretion
.
Nat Genet
2009
;
41
:
82
88
[PubMed]
45.
Huyghe
JR
,
Jackson
AU
,
Fogarty
MP
, et al
.
Exome array analysis identifies new loci and low-frequency variants influencing insulin processing and secretion
.
Nat Genet
2013
;
45
:
197
201
[PubMed]
46.
Prokopenko
I
,
Poon
W
,
Mägi
R
, et al
.
A central role for GRB10 in regulation of islet function in man
.
PLoS Genet
2014
;
10
:
e1004235
[PubMed]
47.
Mueckler
M
,
Thorens
B
.
The SLC2 (GLUT) family of membrane transporters
.
Mol Aspects Med
2013
;
34
:
121
138
[PubMed]
48.
Ren
J
,
Xiang
AH
,
Trigo
E
, et al
.
Genetic variation in MTNR1B is associated with gestational diabetes mellitus and contributes only to the absolute level of beta cell compensation in Mexican Americans
.
Diabetologia
2014
;
57
:
1391
1399
[PubMed]
49.
Rose
CS
,
Grarup
N
,
Krarup
NT
, et al
.
A variant in the G6PC2/ABCB11 locus is associated with increased fasting plasma glucose, increased basal hepatic glucose production and increased insulin release after oral and intravenous glucose loads
.
Diabetologia
2009
;
52
:
2122
2129
[PubMed]
50.
Li
X
,
Shu
YH
,
Xiang
AH
, et al
.
Additive effects of genetic variation in GCK and G6PC2 on insulin secretion and fasting glucose
.
Diabetes
2009
;
58
:
2946
2953
[PubMed]

Supplementary data