We aimed to unravel the mechanisms connecting adiposity to type 2 diabetes. We used MR-Clust to cluster independent genetic variants associated with body fat percentage (388 variants) and BMI (540 variants) based on their impact on type 2 diabetes. We identified five clusters of adiposity-increasing alleles associated with higher type 2 diabetes risk (unfavorable adiposity) and three clusters associated with lower risk (favorable adiposity). We then characterized each cluster based on various biomarkers, metabolites, and MRI-based measures of fat distribution and muscle quality. Analyzing the metabolic signatures of these clusters revealed two primary mechanisms connecting higher adiposity to reduced type 2 diabetes risk. The first involves higher adiposity in subcutaneous tissues (abdomen and thigh), lower liver fat, improved insulin sensitivity, and decreased risk of cardiometabolic diseases and diabetes complications. The second mechanism is characterized by increased body size and enhanced muscle quality, with no impact on cardiometabolic outcomes. Furthermore, our findings unveil diverse mechanisms linking higher adiposity to higher disease risk, such as cholesterol pathways or inflammation. These results reinforce the existence of adiposity-related mechanisms that may act as protective factors against type 2 diabetes and its complications, especially when accompanied by reduced ectopic liver fat.

Article Highlights
  • The relationship between excess adiposity and type 2 diabetes is complex.

  • Can genetic subtypes of adiposity reveal distinct pathways linking adiposity with type 2 diabetes?

  • Higher adiposity increases type 2 diabetes risk via different mechanisms (e.g., cholesterol pathways or inflammation) but decreases risk via other mechanisms (lower liver fat and improved insulin sensitivity, or increased body size and enhanced muscle quality).

  • These insights could improve precision medicine for type 2 diabetes via treating adiposity.

The strong link between excess weight (adiposity) and type 2 diabetes emphasizes the crucial role of weight management in prevention and treatment (1). However, the complex nature of type 2 diabetes and adiposity, influenced by genetics and lifestyle, poses challenges. This complexity leads to variations in insulin resistance, production, and fat accumulation in ectopic places (liver, skeletal muscles, and pancreas) (2), making tailored weight management for diabetes challenging (3,4). While weight loss benefits glycemic control and health, responses vary among individuals (5,6), underscoring the need for personalized interventions.

Individuals with the same overall adiposity also have different risks of developing cardiometabolic disease (7,8). Reporting adiposity using surrogates, such as BMI, has limitations in distinguishing fat and lean mass or accounting for variations in fat distribution, for example, between the metabolically benign subcutaneous fat and more metabolically harmful visceral fat, and across different ethnicities (9,10). The current strategy for managing obesity in individuals with type 2 diabetes relies on using crude cutoffs for BMI and metabolic measures such as HbA1c or blood pressure. There is a need to create a reliable subtype classification system that accounts for the underlying causal factors that connect adiposity and type 2 diabetes to allow more accurate predictions of the benefits of intentional weight loss.

Research on adiposity subtype classification has primarily focused on metabolically healthy obesity, a condition with multiple definitions where individuals with obesity may not immediately exhibit metabolic dysfunction (11,12). Other approaches have involved behavioral traits, BMI, HbA1c, cardiometabolic traits and machine-learning techniques (13,14). However, these studies often relied on traits secondary to obesity or diabetes, introducing potential confounding from correlated factors and limiting their biological or clinical significance. In contrast, approaches that integrate genetic data allow clustering based on risk factors present at birth and unaffected by treatment, distinct from clinical biomarkers. In our previous work, we combined genetics with machine learning to identify two adiposity phenotypes with opposing effects on type 2 diabetes risk (15). Yet, including metabolic biomarkers, such as liver-specific enzymes, in our model might introduce circular arguments, potentially biasing findings toward specific aspects, such as variants influencing liver fat.

In this study, we hypothesized that distinct biological pathways link higher adiposity with type 2 diabetes risk. We first selected variants associated with measures of adiposity. We next used MR-Clust (16) to categorize adiposity variants based on their causal links to type 2 diabetes. MR-Clust groups variants with similar effect estimates, operating on the premise that an exposure (e.g., adiposity) can impact an outcome (e.g., type 2 diabetes) through diverse causal mechanisms with varying degrees. MR-Clust includes a provision to address potential spurious clusters by classifying variants with uncertain causal effect estimates into “null” or “junk” clusters. This methodology was previously applied to cluster IGF-1–associated variants based on their causal associations with type 2 diabetes (17). We then used different biomarkers, including metabolites, lipids, insulin sensitivity and secretion measures, and inflammatory cytokines, to characterize metabolic signatures of each cluster. To further investigate the difference between clusters, we quantified the genetic effect of each cluster on body composition and adipose tissue distribution measured using MRI. Finally, we estimated the causal effect of higher adiposity through each cluster on different diseases, including those common in people with type 2 diabetes, using Mendelian randomization (MR).

Study Design

Supplementary Fig. 1 summarizes our study design. To identify distinct causal pathways that link adiposity to type 2 diabetes, we first used independent genetic variants associated with two measures of adiposity—body fat percentage (BFP) and BMI. Although BMI does not represent adiposity accurately (9), it is by far the most commonly used metric to categorize people with obesity; therefore, it is a useful measure to compare with BFP. Second, we clustered these genetic variants based on their effect on type 2 diabetes risk (18). Each cluster represents a different causal pathway from adiposity to type 2 diabetes risk. Third, we validated the effect of each cluster on type 2 diabetes risk using FinnGen (Data Freeze 8 [19]) as an independent cohort. Fourth, to find the metabolic signature of each cluster, we calculated cluster-specific genetic risk score effects on different biomarkers. Fifth, we calculated the causal effect of higher adiposity using MR through each cluster on different diseases, including those prevalent in type 2 diabetes.

Identification of Distinct Causal Pathways

To identify distinct causal pathways linking adiposity to type 2 diabetes, we used MR-Clust (16). This method calculates the MR estimate for each genetic variant as the ratio of the genetic association with the outcome (type 2 diabetes) divided by the genetic association with the exposure measure (adiposity) and seeks to find clusters of variants with similar estimates by maximizing the likelihood of a mixture of normal distributions. By convention, a genetic variant is only assigned to a cluster if the estimated probability of cluster membership is >80%; if lower than this, then the variant is not assigned to any cluster. The motivation is that variants with similar MR estimates are likely to influence the outcome via similar mechanisms.

Data Source

We used published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics from the largest and latest studies for traits of interest (anthropometric traits, clinical biomarkers, insulin sensitivity and secretion measures, metabolites, and inflammatory markers and cytokines), focusing on European-specific data (Table 1). For measures of adiposity, we accessed the GWAS of BFP from the Integrative Epidemiology Unit OpenGWAS project (20), where BFP had been estimated by impedance measurement in the UK Biobank (21), using the R package ieugwasr (n = 454,633). For BMI, we used the latest meta-analysis of the Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (GIANT) consortium and UK Biobank (n = 806,834) (22). To determine adiposity variant clusters, we used European-specific data from the DIAbetes Meta-ANalysis of Trans-Ethnic (DIAMANTE) type 2 diabetes GWAS (80,154 case subjects vs. 853,816 control subjects) (18). For the second type 2 diabetes data set and disease outcomes, we used data from FinnGen Data Freeze 8 or 7 (19).

Table 1

All publicly available GWAS used

Trait/diseasePubMed IDSample size (case subjects/control subjects for disease if available)EthnicityReference
Cytokines and growth factors 27989323, 33491305 8,293 EUR Ahola-Olli AV, et al., AJHG, 2017; Kalaoja, M et al., Obesity, 2021 
Metabolites 35692035 115,078 EUR Borges CM, et al., BMC Medicine, 2022. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: met-d-* 
Childhood obesity 31504550 24,160 EUR Bradfield JP, et al., Human Molecular Genetics, 2019 
Childhood BMI 26604143 35,668 EUR Felix JF, et al., Human Molecular Genetics, 2016 
HbA1c 34059833 281,416 EUR Chen J, et al., Nature Genetics, 2021 
Adiponectin 22479202 45,891 (AA n = 4,232, EAS n = 1,776, EUR n = 29,347) AA, EAS, EUR Dastani Z, et al., PLoS Genetics, 2012 
HOMA-B, HOMA-IR 20081858 46,186 EUR Dupuis J, et al., Nature Genetics, 2010 
HDL, LDL, and non-HDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides 34887591, 36575460, 35931049 1,320,000 EUR Graham SE, et al., Nature, 2021; Kanoni S, et al., Genome Biology, 2022; Ramdas S, et al., AJHG, 2022 
Leptin 26833098 32,161 EUR Kilpeläinen TO, et al., Nature Communications, 2016 
Fasting glucose, fasting insulin 33558525 140,595, 98,210 EUR Lagou V, et al., Nature Communications, 2021 
Type 2 diabetes 35551307 80,154/853,816 EUR Mahajan A, et al., Nature Genetics, 2022 
Liver enzymes (ALP, ALT, GGT) 33972514 437,438, 437,267, 437,194 EUR Pazoki R, et al., Nature Communications, 2021 
Disposition index, corrected insulin response, insulin at 30 min, incremental insulin at 30 min 24699409 5,318 EUR Prokopenko I, et al., PLoS Genetics, 2014 
Adult BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (female), waist-to-hip ratio (male) 30239722 806,834, 379,501, 315,284 EUR Pulit SL, et al., Human Molecular Genetics, 2019 
Fasting proinsulin 21873549 27,079 EUR Strawbridge RJ, et al., Diabetes, 2011 
Insulin sensitivity index 27416945 16,753 EUR Walford GA, et al., Diabetes, 2016 
Birth weight 31043758 298,142 EUR Warrington NM, et al., Nature Genetics, 2019 
Adult height 36224396 4,080,687 EUR Yengo L, et al., Nature, 2022 
BFP NA 454,633 EUR Elsworth B, 2018. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ukb-b-8909 
C-reactive protein 30388399 204,402 EUR Ligthart S, AJHG, 2018. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ieu-b-35 
Whole-body fat-free mass NA 454,850 EUR Elsworth B. 2018. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ukb-b-13354 
Sex hormone-binding globulin (female) NA 214,989 EUR Richmond R., 2020. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ieu-b-4870 
Sex hormone-binding globulin (male) NA 185,221 EUR Richmond, R., 2020. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ieu-b-4871 
FinnGen Data Freeze 8 disease outcomes 36653562 342,499 EUR Kurki MI, et al., medRxiv, 2022 
 Type 2 diabetes 49,114/283,207 
 Diabetic retinopathy 8,942/283,545 
 Diabetic nephropathy 3,676/283,456 
 Diabetic neuropathy 2,444/249,480 
 Hypertension 81,138/243,756 
 Polycystic ovary syndrome 1,196/181,796 
 Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease 1,908/340,591 
 Ischemic heart disease 56,730/285,769 
 Stroke 34,560/249,480 
 Atherosclerosis (excl. cerebral, coronary, and PAD) 13,434/317,899 
 Heart failure 23,622/317,939 
 Atrial fibrillation 40,594/168,000 
 Chronic kidney disease 7,916/330,300 
 Venous thromboembolism 17,048/325,451 
 Deep vein thrombosis 8,077/295,014 
 Pulmonary embolism 8,170/333,487 
 Aortic aneurysm 7,603/317,899 
 Gout 7,461/221,323 
 Osteoarthritis (knee) 39,343/221,323 
 Osteoarthritis (hip) 17,536/324,963 
 Osteoporosis 6,303/325,717 
 Rheumatoid arthritis 11,178/221,323 
 Gallstones 32,894/301,383 
 Gastroesophageal reflux disease 22,867/292,256 
 Depression 38,225/299,886 
 Psoriasis 8,075/330,975 
 Asthma 37,253/187,112 
 Intrahepatic liver and bile duct cancer 648/259,583 
 Colorectal cancer 5,458/259,583 
FinnGen Data Freeze 7 disease outcomes     
 PAD  11,924/288,638   
Trait/diseasePubMed IDSample size (case subjects/control subjects for disease if available)EthnicityReference
Cytokines and growth factors 27989323, 33491305 8,293 EUR Ahola-Olli AV, et al., AJHG, 2017; Kalaoja, M et al., Obesity, 2021 
Metabolites 35692035 115,078 EUR Borges CM, et al., BMC Medicine, 2022. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: met-d-* 
Childhood obesity 31504550 24,160 EUR Bradfield JP, et al., Human Molecular Genetics, 2019 
Childhood BMI 26604143 35,668 EUR Felix JF, et al., Human Molecular Genetics, 2016 
HbA1c 34059833 281,416 EUR Chen J, et al., Nature Genetics, 2021 
Adiponectin 22479202 45,891 (AA n = 4,232, EAS n = 1,776, EUR n = 29,347) AA, EAS, EUR Dastani Z, et al., PLoS Genetics, 2012 
HOMA-B, HOMA-IR 20081858 46,186 EUR Dupuis J, et al., Nature Genetics, 2010 
HDL, LDL, and non-HDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides 34887591, 36575460, 35931049 1,320,000 EUR Graham SE, et al., Nature, 2021; Kanoni S, et al., Genome Biology, 2022; Ramdas S, et al., AJHG, 2022 
Leptin 26833098 32,161 EUR Kilpeläinen TO, et al., Nature Communications, 2016 
Fasting glucose, fasting insulin 33558525 140,595, 98,210 EUR Lagou V, et al., Nature Communications, 2021 
Type 2 diabetes 35551307 80,154/853,816 EUR Mahajan A, et al., Nature Genetics, 2022 
Liver enzymes (ALP, ALT, GGT) 33972514 437,438, 437,267, 437,194 EUR Pazoki R, et al., Nature Communications, 2021 
Disposition index, corrected insulin response, insulin at 30 min, incremental insulin at 30 min 24699409 5,318 EUR Prokopenko I, et al., PLoS Genetics, 2014 
Adult BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (female), waist-to-hip ratio (male) 30239722 806,834, 379,501, 315,284 EUR Pulit SL, et al., Human Molecular Genetics, 2019 
Fasting proinsulin 21873549 27,079 EUR Strawbridge RJ, et al., Diabetes, 2011 
Insulin sensitivity index 27416945 16,753 EUR Walford GA, et al., Diabetes, 2016 
Birth weight 31043758 298,142 EUR Warrington NM, et al., Nature Genetics, 2019 
Adult height 36224396 4,080,687 EUR Yengo L, et al., Nature, 2022 
BFP NA 454,633 EUR Elsworth B, 2018. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ukb-b-8909 
C-reactive protein 30388399 204,402 EUR Ligthart S, AJHG, 2018. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ieu-b-35 
Whole-body fat-free mass NA 454,850 EUR Elsworth B. 2018. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ukb-b-13354 
Sex hormone-binding globulin (female) NA 214,989 EUR Richmond R., 2020. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ieu-b-4870 
Sex hormone-binding globulin (male) NA 185,221 EUR Richmond, R., 2020. Accessed via IEU OpenGWAS ID: ieu-b-4871 
FinnGen Data Freeze 8 disease outcomes 36653562 342,499 EUR Kurki MI, et al., medRxiv, 2022 
 Type 2 diabetes 49,114/283,207 
 Diabetic retinopathy 8,942/283,545 
 Diabetic nephropathy 3,676/283,456 
 Diabetic neuropathy 2,444/249,480 
 Hypertension 81,138/243,756 
 Polycystic ovary syndrome 1,196/181,796 
 Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease 1,908/340,591 
 Ischemic heart disease 56,730/285,769 
 Stroke 34,560/249,480 
 Atherosclerosis (excl. cerebral, coronary, and PAD) 13,434/317,899 
 Heart failure 23,622/317,939 
 Atrial fibrillation 40,594/168,000 
 Chronic kidney disease 7,916/330,300 
 Venous thromboembolism 17,048/325,451 
 Deep vein thrombosis 8,077/295,014 
 Pulmonary embolism 8,170/333,487 
 Aortic aneurysm 7,603/317,899 
 Gout 7,461/221,323 
 Osteoarthritis (knee) 39,343/221,323 
 Osteoarthritis (hip) 17,536/324,963 
 Osteoporosis 6,303/325,717 
 Rheumatoid arthritis 11,178/221,323 
 Gallstones 32,894/301,383 
 Gastroesophageal reflux disease 22,867/292,256 
 Depression 38,225/299,886 
 Psoriasis 8,075/330,975 
 Asthma 37,253/187,112 
 Intrahepatic liver and bile duct cancer 648/259,583 
 Colorectal cancer 5,458/259,583 
FinnGen Data Freeze 7 disease outcomes     
 PAD  11,924/288,638   

AA, African American; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; EAS, East Asian; EUR, European; GGT, γ-glutamyl transferase; IR, insulin resistance; NA, not applicable; PAD, peripheral artery disease; met-d-*, *represents unique metabolite GWAS identification number.

Studies of MRI Scans

The UK Biobank MRI abdominal protocol has previously been reported (23). We used the neck-to-knee Dixon MRI and single-slice multiecho MRI in the abdomen. Dedicated image processing using deep learning models trained on 100+ manually annotated structures, achieved DICE scores >0.8 for each organ (24–27). Image-derived phenotypes (IDPs) from these segmentations include volume, and median proton density fat fraction (PDFF), which was calculated from the Phase Regularized Estimation using Smoothing and Constrained Optimization (PRESCO) method (28). Quality control involved evaluating univariate distributions and visually inspecting scans with extreme values.

Supplementary Table 1 summarizes the 15 IDPs used in this study, including subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) volumes (abdominal and thigh), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volumes, internal fat and thigh intermuscular adipose tissue volumes (corrected for muscle volume), iliopsoas and total muscle volumes (indexed to height2), and organ volumes (kidney, pancreas, liver, and spleen). We computed the VAT-to-abdominal SAT ratio. We also obtained a measure of fat (PDFF) stored in the liver, pancreas, and the paraspinal muscles (intramyocellular fat) from the single-slice multiecho acquisition.

GWAS for the IDPs were performed using REGENIE version 3.1.1 (29). We included participants self-identified as “White British” and clustering as such in principal components analysis, excluding anomalies related to sex, heterozygosity, missingness, and genotype call rate (21). Sample sizes ranged from 28,587 to 37,589. Age, age squared, sex, genotyping array, imaging center, and the first 10 principal components of the genotype relatedness matrix were included. Phenotypes were inverse normal transformed. Imputed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were filtered to minor allele frequency >0.01 and INFO score (a measure of imputation quality) >0.9, leaving 9,788,243 SNPs included in the final association study.

Genetic Risk Score Analysis

To calculate genetic risk score effects, we the extracted effect size estimate (β) and its corresponding SE for each variant from trait GWAS summary statistics. For missing variants, we obtained proxies (r2 ≥ 0.8) using the European reference panel from the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 (1000G EUR). We aligned all effects for the adiposity-increasing alleles. We performed a random-effect meta-analyses approach using the “rma” function in the R package metafor to calculate the effect of each genetic risk score as previously described (30). To account for multiple testing, we used a Benjamini-Hochberg–adjusted P value <0.05 to highlight significant associations.

MR Analysis

To best estimate the causal effects of each cluster on disease outcomes, we performed MR analyses in R 4.2.2 using the TwoSampleMR package (31,32). The inverse variance weighted method (IVW) was our main test. We used MR-Egger as a sensitivity analysis method to identify horizontal pleiotropy based on the Egger intercept. Additionally, we used weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode (33). For missing variants, we calculated proxies (r2 ≥ 0.8) using 1000G EUR Phase 3. To account for multiple testing, we used a Benjamini-Hochberg–adjusted P value <0.05 to highlight significant causal associations.

Pathway Enrichment Analysis

For each cluster, we first used the SNP2GENE function in Functional Mapping and Annotation (FUMA) (34) to identify expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) using Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) v8 (35) and default settings. Genes identified through SNP2GENE were input into the Protein ANalysis THrough Evolutionary Relationships (PANTHER) v17.0 tool for pathway enrichment analysis (36).

eQTL Comparison in Adipose and Brain Tissue

To compare the number of independent eQTLs within each cluster in subcutaneous adipose, visceral adipose, and brain tissue, eQTLs were identified using FUMA and then clumped using 1000G EUR Phase 3, using a moderate cut of r2 ≥ 0.1 within 10,000-kilobase windows. Data sources for tissues were Multiple Tissue Human Expression Resource (MuTHER) and GTEx v8.

Data and Resource Availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information. Publicly available GWAS summary statistics are available online.

Clusters of Adiposity Genetic Variants

The adiposity-increasing alleles had a considerable heterogeneous effect on type 2 diabetes risk (Supplementary Fig. 2). There was also significant heterogeneity in causal effects from MR-IVW results among instruments for both BFP and BMI (Cochran's Q statistic P value <1e−150 and 1.29e−140, respectively), suggesting that distinct causal pathways exist between adiposity and type 2 diabetes.

Using MR-Clust, we identified five clusters of BFP-increasing alleles representing five different causal pathways (Fig. 1A). Three clusters, comprising 7 variants in BFP-C1, 101 in BFP-C2, and 14 in BFP-C3, indicated a positive causal effect on type 2 diabetes risk, aligning with “unfavorable adiposity” (higher adiposity, adverse metabolic profile, higher disease risk (15) (Supplementary Table 2). Conversely, two BFP clusters (BFP-C4 with 13 variants and BFP-C5 with 9 variants) suggested a strong negative causal effect, consistent with “favorable adiposity” (higher adiposity, favorable metabolic profile, lower disease risk [15]). Among BFP-C1, BFP-C2, and BFP-C3, two, five, and three variants, respectively, were previously associated with unfavorable adiposity (15). Among BFP-C4 and BFP-C5, four variants in each cluster were previously associated with favorable adiposity (Table 2) (15). The higher number of previously known favorable and unfavorable adiposity variants among BFP clusters is anticipated, as the earlier study exclusively used variants associated with BFP to identify these groups.

Figure 1

Scatter plots of the genetic associations with type 2 diabetes per additional adiposity-increasing allele using BFP (A) and BMI (B). Each circle represents a genetic variant. Error bars represent 95% CIs for the genetic associations. Colors represent the clusters, and lines represent the estimated causal effect of each cluster on type 2 diabetes through increasing adiposity. Only variants with a probability of ≥80% for belonging to one of the clusters are included in the plot and taken forward for further analysis. Variants with uncertain cluster membership are displayed as gray dots.

Figure 1

Scatter plots of the genetic associations with type 2 diabetes per additional adiposity-increasing allele using BFP (A) and BMI (B). Each circle represents a genetic variant. Error bars represent 95% CIs for the genetic associations. Colors represent the clusters, and lines represent the estimated causal effect of each cluster on type 2 diabetes through increasing adiposity. Only variants with a probability of ≥80% for belonging to one of the clusters are included in the plot and taken forward for further analysis. Variants with uncertain cluster membership are displayed as gray dots.

Close modal
Table 2

Favorable adiposity variants identified by MR-Clust due to having a decreasing effect on type 2 diabetes risk

Chr:pos (b37)rsIDAdiposity-increasing alleleOther alleleClusterNovel? (yes/no)Nearest gene
1:203527812 rs2802774 BFP-C4 No OPTC–[]–ATP2B4 
2:135597628 rs10496731 BFP-C4 Yes ACMSD 
3:123062657 rs9814758 BFP-C4 Yes ADCY5 
3:171833266 rs4894808 BFP-C4 Yes FNDC3B 
9:136929586 rs55924785 BFP-C4 Yes BRD3 
11:27487992 rs11030016 BFP-C4 Yes LGR4 
12:121709430 rs75412871 BFP-C4 Yes CAMKK2 
12:124409502 rs7133378 BFP-C4 No DNAH10 
15:31689543 rs12441543 BFP-C4 No KLF13 
18:2846812 rs11664106 BFP-C4 No SMCHD1–[]–EMILIN2 
19:34008600 rs33836 BFP-C4 Yes PEPD 
19:46182304 rs10423928 BFP-C4 Yes GIPR 
22:38599767 rs4820323 BFP-C4 Yes MAFF/PLA2G6 
1:219744138 rs2785988 BFP-C5 Yes []–ZC3H11B 
2:165528876 rs13389219 BFP-C5 No COBLL1 
3:12393125 rs1801282 BFP-C5 Yes PPARG 
3:64718258 rs2371767 BFP-C5 Yes ADAMTS9–[] 
4:89726283 rs2276936 BFP-C5 Yes FAM13A 
6:43757896 rs998584 BFP-C5 No VEGFA 
6:127003464 rs853961 BFP-C5 Yes CENPW–[]–RSPO3 
7:130466854 rs972283 BFP-C5 No KLF14–[]–MKLN1 
7:150542711 rs6977416 BFP-C5 No AOC1 
1:11284336 rs10779751 BMI-C3 Yes MTOR 
3:48085349 rs11919665 BMI-C3 Yes MAP4 
6:130384187 rs9375702 BMI-C3 Yes L3MBTL3 
7:93085722 rs2283006 BMI-C3 Yes CALCR 
12:122963550 rs12369179 BMI-C3 No ZCCHC8 
14:91512339 rs1951455 BMI-C3 Yes RPS6KA5 
19:46180184 rs11672660 BMI-C3 Yes GIPR 
20:62691550 rs6512302 BMI-C3 Yes TCEA2 
Chr:pos (b37)rsIDAdiposity-increasing alleleOther alleleClusterNovel? (yes/no)Nearest gene
1:203527812 rs2802774 BFP-C4 No OPTC–[]–ATP2B4 
2:135597628 rs10496731 BFP-C4 Yes ACMSD 
3:123062657 rs9814758 BFP-C4 Yes ADCY5 
3:171833266 rs4894808 BFP-C4 Yes FNDC3B 
9:136929586 rs55924785 BFP-C4 Yes BRD3 
11:27487992 rs11030016 BFP-C4 Yes LGR4 
12:121709430 rs75412871 BFP-C4 Yes CAMKK2 
12:124409502 rs7133378 BFP-C4 No DNAH10 
15:31689543 rs12441543 BFP-C4 No KLF13 
18:2846812 rs11664106 BFP-C4 No SMCHD1–[]–EMILIN2 
19:34008600 rs33836 BFP-C4 Yes PEPD 
19:46182304 rs10423928 BFP-C4 Yes GIPR 
22:38599767 rs4820323 BFP-C4 Yes MAFF/PLA2G6 
1:219744138 rs2785988 BFP-C5 Yes []–ZC3H11B 
2:165528876 rs13389219 BFP-C5 No COBLL1 
3:12393125 rs1801282 BFP-C5 Yes PPARG 
3:64718258 rs2371767 BFP-C5 Yes ADAMTS9–[] 
4:89726283 rs2276936 BFP-C5 Yes FAM13A 
6:43757896 rs998584 BFP-C5 No VEGFA 
6:127003464 rs853961 BFP-C5 Yes CENPW–[]–RSPO3 
7:130466854 rs972283 BFP-C5 No KLF14–[]–MKLN1 
7:150542711 rs6977416 BFP-C5 No AOC1 
1:11284336 rs10779751 BMI-C3 Yes MTOR 
3:48085349 rs11919665 BMI-C3 Yes MAP4 
6:130384187 rs9375702 BMI-C3 Yes L3MBTL3 
7:93085722 rs2283006 BMI-C3 Yes CALCR 
12:122963550 rs12369179 BMI-C3 No ZCCHC8 
14:91512339 rs1951455 BMI-C3 Yes RPS6KA5 
19:46180184 rs11672660 BMI-C3 Yes GIPR 
20:62691550 rs6512302 BMI-C3 Yes TCEA2 

Variants not previously identified as favorable adiposity in previous work (15) are considered novel (yes).

We also identified three clusters of BMI-increasing alleles (Fig. 1B). Two clusters (BMI-C1, 39 variants; and BMI-C2, 82 variants) indicated a positive causal effect on type 2 diabetes risk (consistent with unfavorable adiposity), while one cluster (BMI-C3, 8 variants) suggested a negative causal effect (consistent with favorable adiposity) (Supplementary Table 3). Among BMI-C1 and BMI-C2, one and two variants, respectively, were previously associated with unfavorable adiposity (15). One variant in BMI-C3 was previously associated with favorable adiposity (Table 2) (15). Correlated variants (r2 ≥ 0.8) were observed between BFP and BMI clusters, reflecting shared genetic architecture. Importantly, no correlation was noted between unfavorable and favorable adiposity clusters (Supplementary Table 6 and Supplementary Fig. 3).

We validated the causal effect of adiposity through these clusters on type 2 diabetes (in the unfavorable and favorable direction) using FinnGen (19) as an independent cohort. MR-IVW results against type 2 diabetes risk (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]) were as follows: BFP-all, 2.20 (1.89–2.56); BFP-C1, 11.20 (6.90–18.21); BFP-C2, 4.42 (3.72–5.25); BFP-C3, 1.41 (1.07–1.86); BFP-C4, 0.29 (0.18–0.48); and BFP-C5, 0.05 (0.030–0.080) per 1-SD increase in BFP. For BMI, results were BMI-all, 2.35 (2.19–2.53); BMI-C1, 4.23 (3.53–5.07); BMI-C2, 2.40 (2.13–2.71); and BMI-C3, 0.47 (0.23–0.95) per 1-SD increase in BMI (Supplementary Table 5). The F statistic (a representation of instrument strength for MR-IVW) was >50 for all BFP and BMI clusters (Supplementary Table 7).

The Effect of Clusters on Adiposity-Related Traits

To investigate differences in cluster metabolic signatures, we generated cluster-specific genetic risk scores and compared the effects of these scores on different adiposity-related traits. We included metabolic biomarkers, anthropometric traits, metabolites, and inflammatory cytokines (Figs. 2–4 and Supplementary Table 4).

The genetic risk scores for all BFP and BMI clusters were associated with higher adult BMI and leptin, regardless of their favorable or adverse metabolic effect. BMI clusters showed more significant associations with higher adiposity from early life (birth weight, childhood obesity, and childhood BMI) than BFP clusters. This could be explained by the fact that BMI reflects overall body size, while BFP, focused on the proportion of body weight composed of fat, may be more influenced by factors related to fat distribution and metabolic processes. Comparisons would be more readable if we had a GWAS for childhood BFP. All of the unfavorable adiposity clusters (BFP-C1, C2, and C3 and BMI-C1 and C2) were associated with an adverse metabolic profile (higher triglycerides, C-reactive protein, liver enzymes, insulin resistance, and lower HDL-cholesterol and sex-hormone binding globulin) while favorable adiposity clusters (BFP-C4 and C5 and BMI-C3) were associated with a favorable metabolic profile (Fig. 2).

Figure 2

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on anthropometric and metabolic biomarkers. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. IR, insulin resistance. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Figure 2

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on anthropometric and metabolic biomarkers. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. IR, insulin resistance. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Close modal

Genetic risk scores for unfavorable adiposity clusters were associated with insulin resistance-correlated amino acids (37) (with a weaker effect for BFP-C3 but directionally consistent), including phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine, leucine, and valine. There was also an association with higher glycoprotein acetyls levels, suggesting these clusters affect inflammation (38), and lower glutamine and glycine levels, which are metabolites linked to improved glucose regulation (37) (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 5).

Figure 3

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on metabolites. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Figure 3

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on metabolites. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Close modal

Favorable adiposity clusters had a significant association with lower n-3 levels, and a higher n-6–to–n-3 ratio, whereas unfavorable adiposity clusters had no association with n-3 or n-6 (Fig. 3). Although observational studies link high n-6–to–n-3 ratios with obesity (39), evidence from randomized controlled trials and MR studies remains inconclusive regarding their causal effects on metabolic outcomes such as type 2 diabetes, glucose metabolism, or cardiovascular disease (40,41). Inconsistencies in trial results may stem from factors such as study duration, cooking methods, ethnicity, sample size, and fatty acid source.

To further investigate the cluster-specific role of inflammation, as inflammation has been suggested as a mechanism that increases type 2 diabetes risk in people with obesity (42), we used data on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Genetic risk scores for unfavorable adiposity clusters were associated with higher cytokine levels (tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, tumor necrosis factor-β, interleukin [IL] 7, hepatocyte growth factor, chemokine [CC-motif] ligand 2/MCP-1 for BFP-C2, and IL-2, IL-5, IL-7, and hepatocyte growth factor for BMI-C1). The favorable adiposity cluster BFP-C5 was associated with lower inflammatory cytokine levels (e.g., IL-12) (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 5).

Figure 4

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on inflammatory cytokines. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. CCL, chemokine [CC-motif] ligand; CTACK, cutaneous T-cell attracting chemokine; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; IL2R-α, IL-2 receptor alpha; NGF, nerve growth factor; SCF, stem cell factor. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Figure 4

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on inflammatory cytokines. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. CCL, chemokine [CC-motif] ligand; CTACK, cutaneous T-cell attracting chemokine; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; IL2R-α, IL-2 receptor alpha; NGF, nerve growth factor; SCF, stem cell factor. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Close modal

The Effect of Clusters on MRI-Derived Measures of Fat Distribution and Body Composition

We used precision MRI-derived measures of fat and body composition to investigate differences in fat distribution patterns of our adiposity clusters. Genetic risk scores for all clusters were associated with higher abdominal and thigh SAT. Unfavorable adiposity clusters were also associated with increased ectopic fat accumulation in pancreas, liver, and paraspinal muscle, VAT, internal fat, and thigh intermuscular adipose tissue. They were also associated with higher muscle index and organ volume (kidney, liver, and spleen), with some cluster specific effects (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Table 5).

Figure 5

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on MRI-derived measures of fat distribution and body composition. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Figure 5

Genetic risk score (GRS) effects on MRI-derived measures of fat distribution and body composition. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Close modal

Favorable adiposity clusters had unique and distinct patterns of association with MRI-derived measures. BFP-C4 was associated with higher paraspinal muscle PDFF and higher thigh intermuscular adipose tissue, but no association with liver PDFF, pancreas PDFF, VAT, muscle index measures, or organ volume. BFP-C5 was associated with lower liver PDFF, lower VAT-to-abdominal SAT ratio, lower muscle index measures, and lower kidney and spleen volume. BMI-C3 was associated with higher muscle index and higher kidney and liver volume. These results were consistent in data from men and women.

The Causal Effect of Adiposity Clusters on Risk of Type 2 Diabetes-Related Disease Outcomes

Since the genetically predicted favorable and unfavorable adiposity clusters had distinct effects on different clinical and MRI biomarkers, we used two-sample MR to investigate differences in causal effect of each cluster on disease risk, including those related to type 2 diabetes (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Table 5). We detected evidence of heterogeneity from MR estimates when we studied the effect of higher adiposity using all BFP and BMI variants (BFP-all and BMI-all) (Supplementary Table 5). However, there was no evidence of heterogeneity in the causal estimates when using each cluster. Unfavorable adiposity clusters BFP-C1, BFP-C2, BMI-C1, and BMI-C2 were associated with higher disease risk, including diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy, hypertension, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, atherosclerosis, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, thrombotic events, aortic aneurysm, gout, osteoarthritis, gallstones, and asthma. BFP-C3 was only associated with higher risk of peripheral artery disease, atherosclerosis, and aortic aneurysm. We also observed some cluster-specific effects among unfavorable adiposity clusters; for example, BFP-C2 and BMI-C2 were associated with higher psoriasis risk.

Figure 6

The causal effects of higher adiposity through each cluster on risk of type 2 diabetes and its complications. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. PAD, peripheral artery disease. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Figure 6

The causal effects of higher adiposity through each cluster on risk of type 2 diabetes and its complications. For easier comparison, the z-scores displayed are standardized for the number of variants per cluster. PAD, peripheral artery disease. P values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for each cluster. *Indicates the result of the adjusted P-value threshold was <0.05.

Close modal

Among favorable adiposity clusters, BFP-C5 was associated with lower disease risk, including diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy, hypertension, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, and atherosclerosis, but it was associated with higher risk of thrombotic events and osteoarthritis. BFP-C4 was associated with lower diabetic retinopathy risk and higher osteoarthritis risk, and BMI-C3 was associated with higher risk of osteoarthritis and gallstones. All results were directionally consistent with those from sensitivity tests (Supplementary Table 5).

eQTL and Pathway Enrichment Analysis

To explore differences in tissue-specific gene expression for unfavorable and favorable adiposity variant clusters, we counted the number of independent eQTLs in brain and adipose (subcutaneous and visceral) tissue per cluster. When the ratio of independent eQTLs in adipose to brain tissue was compared, unfavorable adiposity clusters BFP-C2 and BMI-C2 were more enriched for eQTLs in the brain, and favorable adiposity clusters were more enriched in adipose tissue (Supplementary Table 8).

All clusters were enriched for different pathways (Supplementary Table 9). Notable pathways for unfavorable adiposity clusters comprised cytoskeletal regulation by Ras homolog guanosine triphosphatase (BFP-C1), Janus kinase/STAT signaling pathway (BFP-C2 and BMI-C2), endothelin signaling pathway (BFP-C3), and ubiquitin proteasome pathway (BMI-C1). For favorable adiposity clusters, the Alzheimer disease-amyloid secretase pathway was highlighted (BFP-C4). Of these, only BFP-C3 and BMI-C2 remained significant after correction for multiple testing (false discovery rate <0.05).

We performed clustered MR analyses to identify distinct causal mechanisms linking higher adiposity with type 2 diabetes risk. We identified evidence for multiple causal mechanisms by which adiposity influences type 2 diabetes risk. While most biological mechanisms associated with higher adiposity lead to increased type 2 diabetes risk (e.g., inflammation), there may also be some pathways associated with higher adiposity that lead to lower type 2 diabetes risk. These potentially protective mechanisms relate to lower liver fat and improved insulin sensitivity or to increased body size and enhanced muscle quality.

Association Patterns Common to All Adiposity Clusters

Shared associations across adiposity clusters, irrespective of their favorable or unfavorable metabolic effect, suggest consequences of higher adiposity beyond metabolic impact. For example, association with higher leptin for all clusters was expected, because leptin is produced by adipose tissue. The associations with higher osteoarthritis risk are consistent with previous findings stating that the metabolic effect of adiposity might not be the primary driver of this condition. The higher thrombotic event risk is also in agreement with previous results confirming the causal role of nonmetabolic components of higher adiposity (e.g., the mechanical effect of higher weight on blood flow in lower limbs) (43).

The Difference Between Unfavorable and Favorable Adiposity Clusters

Overall, the unfavorable adiposity clusters were associated with an adverse metabolic profile encompassing higher insulin resistance and inflammatory markers, adverse liver profile, and increased ectopic fat deposition (liver, pancreas, paraspinal, and thigh muscle). The favorable adiposity clusters were overall associated with a healthy metabolic profile, with an association pattern opposite to the unfavorable adiposity clusters.

The association between unfavorable adiposity clusters and higher organ volume, especially the liver, could be due to increased ectopic fat. No cluster showed an association with pancreas volume, suggesting limited power or a lack of involvement in adiposity-to-diabetes pathways, although pancreatic volume tends to decline in diabetes, suggesting volume changes in this organ are more difficult to contextualize. The overall associations with fat distribution were consistent with previous work, where unfavorable adiposity was associated with higher liver, pancreatic and visceral fat, and favorable adiposity was associated with lower liver fat and had no significant effect on pancreatic fat (15,43).

Recent findings show that intentional weight loss in type 2 diabetes reverses many associated amino acid changes (44). Therefore, the opposite effect of favorable and unfavorable adiposity clusters on amino acid levels previously associated with lower insulin sensitivity and higher insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes risk (37) could suggest these amino acids are not causal risk factors but are biomarkers of metabolically healthy or unhealthy adiposity.

Differences Between Unfavorable Adiposity Clusters

Differences among unfavorable adiposity clusters in associations with biomarkers suggest diverse mechanisms by which higher adiposity leads to adverse metabolic outcomes. BFP-C1 demonstrated a more unfavorable metabolic effect, with the strongest impact on type 2 diabetes risk, circulatory lipids, and surrogates of insulin resistance, with no effect on inflammatory cytokines. Cytoskeletal regulation by Ras homolog guanosine triphosphatase was highlighted for BFP-C1, for which there is emerging evidence to implicate a role in metabolic homeostasis by regulating glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue (45). This cluster also had more significant associations with measures of fat distribution and body composition in data from women.

BFP-C2 and BMI-C2 were associated with cytokines and inflammatory markers and were both enriched for pathways related to inflammation, suggesting that inflammation is strongly associated with the mechanisms these clusters may represent. Higher adiposity through these clusters was associated with higher risk of psoriasis, possibly through higher inflammation as an underlying mechanism. BFP-C3 was only associated with vascular outcomes, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerosis, and aortic aneurysm, aligning with the highlighted endothelin signaling pathway for this cluster.

Differences Between Favorable Adiposity Clusters

Similarly, the differences between favorable adiposity clusters associations with metabolic and imaging biomarkers suggest that there is more than one mechanism of adiposity leading to favorable metabolic outcomes. BFP-C5 was more protective against disease risk compared with BFP-C4 and BMI-C3. BFP-C5 was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower inflammatory marker levels, while BFP-C4 and BMI-C3 were not associated with these measures.

The favorable adiposity clusters also had unique association patterns with measures of fat distribution and body composition. BFP-C5 was associated with lower liver PDFF, while BFP-C4 and BMI-C3 had no association with liver fat. BFP-C4 was associated with higher subcutaneous fat and paraspinal muscle PDFF but had no association with any other ectopic fat depot.

BMI-C3 could represent an adiposity subtype associated with increased body size regardless of fat, as it was associated with higher measures of early-life obesity, muscle index, kidney volume, and liver volume, but had no association with any ectopic fat measures. The favorable effect of BMI-C3 could be through increasing skeletal muscle mass, which has been associated with decreased type 2 diabetes risk potentially via increased insulin sensitivity, improved glucose metabolism, or acting as a sink for glucose (46,47).

None of the favorable adiposity clusters were associated with pancreatic fat, although this is harder to measure accurately. This is consistent with result of the “twin-cycle” hypothesis finding that liver fat is more likely to mediate glycemic control in type 2 diabetes than pancreatic fat (15,48).

Strengths and Limitations

We leveraged a range of publicly available GWAS data sets to investigate the complexity between adiposity and type 2 diabetes risk. This research can be expanded as sample sizes and data accessibility improve. We also used gold standard measurements of MRI scans of sex-specific fat and organ content within the UK Biobank to strengthen our analysis and consider sexual dimorphism in body fat distribution.

The GWAS data sets we chose were focused on European populations due to large sample size, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings to people of other ethnicities and fat distributions (9). Nevertheless, we have shown that previously identified favorable and unfavorable adiposity clusters have a consistent effect across different ethnic groups (49).

Second, the biological interpretation of our adiposity cluster variants will require further exploration, because most GWAS variants reside within noncoding regions and often exert their effects alongside correlated variants (50).

Third, using genetic associations as a starting point may downplay the influence of environmental factors. This approach necessitates accurate effect estimates, well-established genetic foundations for traits, and large sample sizes; hence, why we selected the most current and expansive GWAS studies available.

Fourth, in our clustering algorithm, we prioritized the minimization of false-positive findings. While this cautious approach bolsters reliability of our findings, it may leave certain associations unexplored if we overlooked variants that might belong to adiposity clusters.

Finally, one key consideration is the strength and distinctiveness of the identified clusters. The interpretation of “distinct” clusters is contingent upon effect size ratios, and we recognize the need for a nuanced evaluation of their robustness. We acknowledge that the observed differences in associations with various traits among clusters may, in some instances, represent differences in magnitude rather than distinct mechanistic pathways.

Conclusion

Using genetically predicted measures of adiposity and diverse traits, we found evidence for different underlying pathways and subtypes of higher adiposity with contrasting risks for type 2 diabetes and related complications. These novel insights hold potential for advancing precision medicine strategies for type 2 diabetes and related conditions through targeted adiposity management.

This article contains supplementary material online at https://doi.org/10.2337/figshare.25460608.

Acknowledgments. This research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 44584. Data on glycemic traits were contributed by Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC) investigators and were downloaded from www.magicinvestigators.org. Data on birth weight, childhood obesity, and childhood BMI were contributed by the Early Growth Genetics (EGG) Consortium using the UK Biobank Resource and were downloaded from www.egg-consortium.org. The authors also want to acknowledge the participants and investigators of the FinnGen study.

Funding. H.Y. is funded by the Diabetes UK RD Lawrence Fellowship (grant 17/0005594). N.S. is supported by the British Heart Foundation Research Excellence Award (RE/18/6/34217). S.B. is supported by the Wellcome Trust (225790/Z/22/Z) and the United Kingdom Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00002/7, MC_UU_00040/01).

Duality of Interest. N.S. has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics, and personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Menarini-Ricerche, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. M.C. and E.P.S. are employees of Calico Life Sciences LLC. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. A.A., M.C., M.T., N.B., M.A.H., E.P.S., B.W., S.B., J.D.B., N.S., E.L.T., and H.Y. contributed to discussion and reviewed and edited the manuscript. A.A., M.C., M.T., N.B., M.A.H., E.P.S., and B.W. ran investigation for the study. A.A. and H.Y. wrote the original draft. H.Y. conceptualized the study, acquired funding for the study, and supervised the study. H.Y. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

1.
Klein
S
,
Gastaldelli
A
,
Yki-Järvinen
H
,
Scherer
PE.
Why does obesity cause diabetes
?
Cell Metab
2022
;
34
:
11
20
2.
Ruze
R
,
Liu
T
,
Zou
X
, et al
.
Obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: connections in epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatments
.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
2023
;
14
:
1161521
3.
Sulc
J
,
Winkler
TW
,
Heid
IM
,
Kutalik
Z.
Heterogeneity in obesity: genetic basis and metabolic consequences
.
Curr Diab Rep
2020
;
20
:
1
4.
Nair
ATN
,
Wesolowska-Andersen
A
,
Brorsson
C
, et al
.
Heterogeneity in phenotype, disease progression and drug response in type 2 diabetes
.
Nat Med
2022
;
28
:
982
988
5.
Kyriakidou
A
,
Kyriazou
AV
,
Koufakis
T
, et al
.
Clinical and genetic predictors of glycemic control and weight loss response to liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
J Pers Med
2022
;
12
:
424
6.
Thomsen
MN
,
Skytte
MJ
,
Samkani
A
, et al
.
Dietary carbohydrate restriction augments weight loss-induced improvements in glycaemic control and liver fat in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial
.
Diabetologia
2022
;
65
:
506
517
7.
Magkos
F.
Metabolically healthy obesity: what’s in a name
?
Am J Clin Nutr
2019
;
110
:
533
539
8.
Zhou
Z
,
Macpherson
J
,
Gray
SR
, et al
.
Are people with metabolically healthy obesity really healthy? A prospective cohort study of 381,363 UK Biobank participants
.
Diabetologia
2021
;
64
:
1963
1972
9.
Yaghootkar
H
,
Whitcher
B
,
Bell
JD
,
Thomas
EL.
Ethnic differences in adiposity and diabetes risk – insights from genetic studies
.
J Intern Med
2020
;
288
:
271
283
10.
Apovian
CM
,
Guo
XR
,
Hawley
JA
,
Karmali
S
,
Loos
RJF
,
Waterlander
WE.
Approaches to addressing the rise in obesity levels
.
Nat Rev Endocrinol
2023
;
19
:
76
81
11.
Abraham
A
,
Yaghootkar
H.
Identifying obesity subtypes: a review of studies utilising clinical biomarkers and genetic data
.
Diabet Med
2023
;
40
:
e15226
12.
Ahima
RS
,
Lazar
MA.
The health risk of obesity–better metrics imperative
.
Science
2013
;
341
:
856
858
13.
Acosta
A
,
Camilleri
M
,
Abu Dayyeh
B
, et al
.
Selection of antiobesity medications based on phenotypes enhances weight loss: a pragmatic trial in an obesity clinic
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2021
;
29
:
662
671
14.
Fagherazzi
G
,
Zhang
L
,
Aguayo
G
, et al
.
Towards precision cardiometabolic prevention: results from a machine learning, semi-supervised clustering approach in the nationwide population-based ORISCAV-LUX 2 study
.
Sci Rep
2021
;
11
:
16056
15.
Martin
S
,
Cule
M
,
Basty
N
, et al
.
Genetic evidence for different adiposity phenotypes and their opposing influences on ectopic fat and risk of cardiometabolic disease
.
Diabetes
2021
;
70
:
1843
1856
16.
Foley
CN
,
Mason
AM
,
Kirk
PDW
,
Burgess
S.
MR-Clust: clustering of genetic variants in Mendelian randomization with similar causal estimates
.
Bioinformatics
2021
;
37
:
531
541
17.
Wang
W
,
Tesfay
EB
,
van Klinken
JB
, et al
.
Clustered Mendelian randomization analyses identify distinct and opposing pathways in the association between genetically influenced insulin-like growth factor-1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Int J Epidemiol
2022
;
51
:
1874
1885
18.
Mahajan
A
,
Spracklen
CN
,
Zhang
W
, et al.;
FinnGen
;
eMERGE Consortium
.
Multi-ancestry genetic study of type 2 diabetes highlights the power of diverse populations for discovery and translation
.
Nat Genet
2022
;
54
:
560
572
19.
Kurki
MI
,
Karjalainen
J
,
Palta
P
, et al
.
FinnGen provides unique genetic insights from combining isolated population and national health register data
. 6 March 2022 [preprint]. medRxiv 2022:2022.03.03.22271360
20.
Elsworth
B
,
Lyon
M
,
Alexander
T
, et al
.
The MRC IEU OpenGWAS data infrastructure
. 10 August 2020 [preprint]. bioRxiv 2020.08.10.244293
21.
Bycroft
C
,
Freeman
C
,
Petkova
D
, et al
.
The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data
.
Nature
2018
;
562
:
203
209
22.
Pulit
SL
,
Stoneman
C
,
Morris
AP
, et al.;
GIANT Consortium
.
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for body fat distribution in 694 649 individuals of European ancestry
.
Hum Mol Genet
2019
;
28
:
166
174
23.
Littlejohns
TJ
,
Holliday
J
,
Gibson
LM
, et al
.
The UK Biobank imaging enhancement of 100,000 participants: rationale, data collection, management and future directions
.
Nat Commun
2020
;
11
:
2624
24.
Basty
N
,
Liu
Y
,
Cule
M
,
Thomas
EL
,
Bell
JD
,
Whitcher
B.
Automated measurement of pancreatic fat and iron concentration using multi-echo and T1-weighted MRI data
.
In: 2020 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging [ISBI]), Iowa City, IA
;
IEEE
2020
:
345
348
25.
Liu
Y
,
Basty
N
,
Whitcher
B
, et al
.
Genetic architecture of 11 organ traits derived from abdominal MRI using deep learning
.
eLife
2021
;
10
:
e65554
26.
Whitcher
B
,
Thanaj
M
,
Cule
M
, et al
.
Precision MRI phenotyping enables detection of small changes in body composition for longitudinal cohorts
.
Sci Rep
2022
;
12
:
3748
27.
Thanaj
M
,
Basty
N
,
Whitcher
B
, et al
.
Precision MRI phenotyping of muscle volume and quality at a population scale
.
Front Physiol
2024
;
15
:
1288657
28.
Bydder
M
,
Ghodrati
V
,
Gao
Y
,
Robson
MD
,
Yang
Y
,
Hu
P.
Constraints in estimating the proton density fat fraction
.
Magn Reson Imaging
2020
;
66
:
1
8
29.
Mbatchou
J
,
Barnard
L
,
Backman
J
, et al
.
Computationally efficient whole-genome regression for quantitative and binary traits
.
Nat Genet
2021
;
53
:
1097
1103
30.
Yaghootkar
H
,
Scott
RA
,
White
CC
, et al
.
Genetic evidence for a normal-weight “metabolically obese” phenotype linking insulin resistance, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes
2014
;
63
:
4369
4377
31.
Hemani
G
,
Tilling
K
,
Davey Smith
G.
Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data
.
PLoS Genet
2017
;
13
:
e1007081
32.
Hemani
G
,
Zheng
J
,
Elsworth
B
, et al
.
The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome
.
eLife
2018
;
7
:
e34408
33.
Burgess
S
,
Davey Smith
G
,
Davies
NM
, et al
.
Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations: update for summer 2023
.
Wellcome Open Res
2023
;
4
:
186
34.
Watanabe
K
,
Taskesen
E
,
van Bochoven
A
,
Posthuma
D.
Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA
.
Nat Commun
2017
;
8
:
1826
35.
GTEx Consortium
.
The GTEx Consortium atlas of genetic regulatory effects across human tissues
.
Science
2020
;
369
:
1318
1330
36.
Thomas
PD
,
Ebert
D
,
Muruganujan
A
,
Mushayahama
T
,
Albou
LP
,
Mi
H.
PANTHER: making genome-scale phylogenetics accessible to all
.
Protein Sci
2022
;
31
:
8
22
37.
Vangipurapu
J
,
Stancáková
A
,
Smith
U
,
Kuusisto
J
,
Laakso
M.
Nine amino acids are associated with decreased insulin secretion and elevated glucose levels in a 7.4-year follow-up study of 5,181 Finnish men
.
Diabetes
2019
;
68
:
1353
1358
38.
Chiesa
ST
,
Charakida
M
,
Georgiopoulos
G
, et al
.
Glycoprotein acetyls: a novel inflammatory biomarker of early cardiovascular risk in the young
.
J Am Heart Assoc
2022
;
11
:
e024380
39.
Simopoulos
AP.
An increase in the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio increases the risk for obesity
.
Nutrients
2016
;
8
:
128
40.
Borges
MC
,
Haycock
PC
,
Zheng
J
, et al
.
Role of circulating polyunsaturated fatty acids on cardiovascular diseases risk: analysis using Mendelian randomization and fatty acid genetic association data from over 114,000 UK Biobank participants
.
BMC Med
2022
;
20
:
210
41.
Brown
TJ
,
Brainard
J
,
Song
F
,
Wang
X
,
Abdelhamid
A
;
PUFAH Group
.
Omega-3, omega-6, and total dietary polyunsaturated fat for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
.
BMJ
2019
;
366
:
l4697
42.
Rohm
TV
,
Meier
DT
,
Olefsky
JM
,
Donath
MY.
Inflammation in obesity, diabetes, and related disorders
.
Immunity
2022
;
55
:
31
55
43.
Martin
S
,
Tyrrell
J
,
Thomas
EL
, et al
.
Disease consequences of higher adiposity uncoupled from its adverse metabolic effects using Mendelian randomisation
.
eLife
2022
;
11
:
e72452
44.
Corbin
LJ
,
Hughes
DA
,
Bull
CJ
, et al
.
The metabolomic signature of weight loss and remission in the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT)
.
Diabetologia
2024
;
67
:
74
87
45.
Møller
LLV
,
Klip
A
,
Sylow
L.
Rho GTPases-emerging regulators of glucose homeostasis and metabolic health
.
Cells
2019
;
8
:
434
46.
Yeung
CHC
,
Au Yeung
SL
,
Fong
SSM
,
Schooling
CM.
Lean mass, grip strength and risk of type 2 diabetes: a bi-directional Mendelian randomisation study
.
Diabetologia
2019
;
62
:
789
799
47.
Chen
S
,
Yan
S
,
Aiheti
N
, et al
.
A bi-directional Mendelian randomization study of sarcopenia-related traits and type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
2023
;
14
:
1109800
48.
Koivula
RW
,
Atabaki-Pasdar
N
,
Giordano
GN
, et al.;
IMI DIRECT Consortium
.
The role of physical activity in metabolic homeostasis before and after the onset of type 2 diabetes: an IMI DIRECT study
.
Diabetologia
2020
;
63
:
744
756
49.
Ahmed
A
,
Justo
S
,
Yaghootkar
H.
Genetic scores associated with favourable and unfavourable adiposity have consistent effect on metabolic profile and disease risk across diverse ethnic groups
.
Diabet Med
2023
;
40
:
e15213
50.
Burgess
DJ.
Fine-mapping causal variants — why finding ‘the one’ can be futile
.
Nat Rev Genet
2022
;
23
:
261
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/journals/pages/license.