SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

MtDNA meta-analysis reveals both phenotype specificity and allele heterogeneity: a model for differential association.

Sci Rep · 2017-02-23

DOI: 10.1038/srep43449PMID: 28230165

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Human mtDNA genetic variants have traditionally been considered markers for ancient population migrations. However, during the past three decades, these variants have been associated with altered susceptibility to various phenotypes, thus supporting their importance for human health. Nevertheless, mtDNA disease association has frequently been supported only in certain populations, due either to population stratification or differential epistatic compensations among populations. To partially overcome these obstacles, we performed meta-analysis of the multiple mtDNA association studies conducted until 2016, encompassing 53,975 patients and 63,323 controls. Our findings support the association of mtDNA haplogroups and recurrent variants with specific phenotypes such as Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes, longevity, and breast cancer. Strikingly, our assessment of mtDNA variants' involvement with multiple phenotypes revealed significant impact for Caucasian haplogroups H, J, and K. Therefore, ancient mtDNA variants could be divided into those that affect specific phenotypes, versus others with a general impact on phenotype combinations. We suggest that the mtDNA could serve as a model for phenotype specificity versus allele heterogeneity.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.