Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Genetics

Open Access

Genome-wide screen for heavy alcohol consumption

  • Diego F Wyszynski1Email author,
  • Carolien I Panhuysen1,
  • Qianli Ma1,
  • Agustin G Yip1,
  • Marsha Wilcox1,
  • Porat Erlich1 and
  • Lindsay A Farrer1
BMC Genetics20034(Suppl 1):S106

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-4-S1-S106

Published: 31 December 2003

Abstract

Background

To find specific genes predisposing to heavy alcohol consumption (self-reported consumption of 24 grams or more of alcohol per day among men and 12 grams or more among women), we studied 330 families collected by the Framingham Heart Study made available to participants in the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 (GAW13).

Results

Parametric and nonparametric methods of linkage analysis were used. No significant evidence of linkage was found; however, weak signals were identified in several chromosomal regions, including 1p22, 4q12, 4q25, and 11q24, which are in the vicinity of those reported in other similar studies.

Conclusion

Our study did not reveal significant evidence of linkage to heavy alcohol use; however, we found weak confirmation of studies carried out in other populations.

Background

While heavy drinking is not necessarily indicative of alcohol abuse or alcoholism, individuals who binge drink are at a higher risk for alcohol-related disorders than others. "Heavy" (or "hazardous") drinking is a serious public health condition that has been defined in different ways. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes it as "more than 14 drinks per week for men and more than 7 drinks per week for women". Using this definition, there are 8.7 percent of males and 6.7 percent of females who are heavy drinkers among current drinkers in the United States [1]. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration defines "heavy alcohol use" as "drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of 5 or more days in the past 30 days". According to this definition, more than 13% percent of young adults aged 18 to 25 were heavy alcohol users [2]. This percentage translates to approximately 4 million young adult heavy drinkers.

That alcoholism has a genetic component has been known for at least three decades and part of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 11 (GAW11) was dedicated to this phenotype [3]. Previous studies have shown evidence of linkage of alcoholism to markers on chromosomes 1, 2, 4, 7, and 11 [48]. To find specific genes predisposing to heavy alcohol consumption, we studied families collected by the Framingham Heart Study made available to participants in the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13.

Methods

Population

The Framingham Heart Study data set provided for the GAW13 included genotypes and longitudinal data for 330 families collected during 1948–1998 (original cohort) and between 1971–1999 (offspring cohort). "Heavy drinking" was defined as self-reported consumption of an average of more than 24 grams of alcohol per day during the year before the examination among men and an average of more than 12 grams per day among women. Data were available from 11 (out of 21) examinations in the original cohort and from all five examinations in the offspring cohort. Subjects who reported heavy drinking during the year previous to any one examination were classified as affected (original cohort n = 193; offspring cohort n = 578), whereas subjects who consistently reported no consumption of alcohol at any time in the year previous to all examinations were "unaffected" for the heavy drinking phenotype (original cohort n = 34; offspring cohort n = 53). The remaining family members, subjects who reported alcohol use in the year previous to at least one examination but who never consumed on average > 24 grams/day (men) or > 12 grams/day (women), were excluded from the analysis (original cohort n = 167; offspring cohort n = 677).

Statistical analysis

Two-point parametric linkage analysis was performed by the VITESSE program [9]. Assuming the disease locus was at a given map position, we calculated the likelihood of the data using a range of different dominant and recessive transmission models with a fixed disease prevalence. The disease gene penetrance was assumed alternatively at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 0.85, and 0.99, while the phenocopy rate was tested at 0.01 and 0.001. The strategy of obtaining LOD scores using alternative models of inheritance has been tested successfully in several complex disorders [10, 11].

Multipoint NPL (nonparametric linkage) analysis was performed using the S (pairs) option of GENEHUNTER-Plus, and maximized nonparametric LOD scores ("K&C LOD scores") were calculated under an exponential model with δ constrained between 0 and 2 [12].

Finally, two nonparametric affected sib-pair analyses were performed. Maximum-likelihood estimates of the proportions of sib pairs sharing 0, 1, or 2 alleles identical by descent (IBD) at marker loci were estimated with the routine SIB-MLS of the software GAS (v. 2.0) [13]. This nonparametric statistic is used to test for deviations of these proportions from the levels expected under the null hypothesis of no linkage. We also performed Haseman-Elston regressions as modified by Sham and Purcell [14] for all marker loci versus the trait using full and half-sib relative pairs as implemented in the software SIB-PAIR [15]. Asymptotic and empirical p-values were obtained. While this sib-pair linkage method was originally explained for a continuous trait, it is also applicable to binary traits [16].

Results

There were 86 families with one heavy drinker, 73 with two, 59 with three, 38 with four, and 35 with five or more. One family had 16 heavy drinking members (26526). In all, four markers showed some evidence for linkage in parametric two-point LOD score analysis (Table 1); however, none reached a LOD score of 3.0.
Table 1

Two-point parametric LOD scores for heavy alcohol use

Chromosome

Marker

cM

LOD Score (θ)A

Model (penetrance)B

1p22

GATA6A05

113.69

2.32 (0.20)

Recessive (0.85)

2p11

GATA71G04

99.41

2.56 (0.20)

Recessive (0.75)

4p12

GATA8A05

60.16

2.33 (0.00)

Dominant (0.25)

11q24

GATA64D03

123

2.15 (0.10)

Recessive (0.25)

Aθ, recombination fraction. BThe disease gene penetrance was fixed alternatively at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 0.85, and 0.99. The phenocopy rate was tested at 0.01 and 0.001.

Under the MLS affected sib-pair analyses, eight markers on six chromosomes yielded two-point MLS LOD scores ≥ 2.0 (Table 2) and the Haseman-Elston regression sib-pair analyses revealed six markers with asymptotic p < 0.01, of which four had empiric p < 0.01 after 201 iterations (Table 3). The multipoint NPL analysis did not reveal any suggestion of linkage (i.e., LOD score ≥ 2.0).
Table 2

Two-point maximum LOD score (MLS) for heavy alcohol use

Chromosome

Marker

cM

MLS

2q22

GATA26B04

149.89

2.88

4q12

GATA24H01

78.43

2.25

4q13

ATA2A03

93.48

2.49

6p21

GTAT1H06

53.81

2.11

14q21

GATA4B04

44.06

2.24

14q21

GGAA10C09

55.82

2.32

16p13

ATA41E04

11.46

2.19

19q13

mfd232

78.08

2.84

Table 3

Haseman-Elston regression sib-pair analysis for heavy alcohol use

Chromosome

Marker

cM

Full Sibs

Half Sibs

t-Value

Asymptotic p-Value

Empiric p-valueA

4q25

ATA26B08

129.92

367

13

2.6

0.0047

0.0050

7q36

GATA4H10

161.21

74

0

2.7

0.0051

0.0149

7q36

Mfd265

181.97

387

17

2.6

0.0046

0.0100

11q25

ATA27C09

147.77

66

2

3.4

0.0008

0.0050

22q13

GATA21F03

28.57

383

19

3.0

0.0014

0.0050

ABased on 201 iterations.

Discussion

Assuming the recommendations of Lander and Kruglyak [17] that we accept, on average, one false positive in 20 genome scans (which corresponds to a nominal p = 0.000022 and LOD score of 3.63), our analyses failed to provide significant evidence of linkage to heavy alcohol use in the Framingham Heart Study data set. However, if we accept the suggestion of Rao and Gu [18] to relax the threshold enough to tolerate, on average, one false positive per 400-marker genome scan (which would correspond to p = 0.0023 and LOD score of 1.75), we identified several areas of potential interest, including 1p22, 11q24, and 12q. Our finding on chromosome 1 overlaps with that of Reich et al. [4], who reported linkage of alcoholism to 1p21-22. The dopamine receptor D2 (or DRD2) gene is located in 11q23. Because of its central role in the neuromodulation of appetitive behaviors, the DRD2 gene has been scrutinized as having a possible role in susceptibility to alcoholism, with mostly negative results [19, 20]. We found a MLOD = 2.15 on 11q24, 15 cM downstream of DRD2. Its significance is uncertain. Two important alcohol-related enzymes are located close to chromosomal areas where we found weak LOD scores (~1.70): the aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 family (or ALDH2) is located on 12q24.2 and the alcohol dehydrogenase 1b, beta polypeptide (or ADH2) is in 4q22. We also had a "peak" (two-point MLOD = 1.72) at 4p13, where Long et al. [5] showed linkage in a Southwestern American Indian tribe.

Several reasons might explain our failure to find significant evidence of linkage to heavy alcohol use and the seemingly different results using alternative analytic methods. First, the phenotype we chose was extreme and yielded a low sample size, particularly of informative affected sib pairs. Second, individuals were classified as "affected" if they consumed, on average, high amounts of alcohol in the year previous to any examination. This might have been an inadequate choice, since it probably included a substantial number of heavy "social" drinkers, for whom a genetic susceptibility is unlikely. If the sample size had allowed it, we would have used the definition of the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (see Background), which requires at least five episodes of heavy drinking in a 30-day period. Finally, the data on alcohol exposure was self-reported. We are unaware of reliability studies for alcohol consumption in this population. If misclassification bias exists, it might have reduced the statistical power and decreased the likelihood of finding significant results.

Conclusion

Our study did not reveal significant evidence of linkage to heavy alcohol use; however, we found weak confirmation of studies carried-out in other populations.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by grants DA12849 and DA12690 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Genetics Program, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Health. United States. 2001Google Scholar
  2. U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. 2001Google Scholar
  3. Almasy L, Borecki IB: Exploring genetic analysis of complex traits through the paradigm of alcohol dependence: Summary of GAW11 contributions. Genet Epidemiol. 1999, 17 (suppl 1): S1-S24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Reich T, Edenberg HJ, Goate A, Williams JT, Rice JP, Van Eerdewegh P, Foroud T, Hesselbrock V, Schuckit MA, Bucholz K, Porjesz B, Li TK, Conneally PM, Nurnberger JI, Tischfield JA, Crowe RR, Cloninger CR, Wu W, Shears S, Carr K, Crose C, Willig C, Begleiter H: Genome-wide search for genes affecting the risk for alcohol dependence. Am J Med Genet. 1998, 81: 207-215. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19980508)81:3<207::AID-AJMG1>3.3.CO;2-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Long JC, Knowler WC, Hanson RL, Robin RW, Urbanek M, Moore E, Bennett PH, Goldman D: Evidence for genetic linkage to alcohol dependence on chromosomes 4 and 11 from an autosome-wide scan in an American Indian population. Am J Med Genet. 1998, 81: 216-221. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19980508)81:3<216::AID-AJMG2>3.0.CO;2-U.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Begleiter H, Reich T, Nurnberger J, Li TK, Conneally PM, Edenberg H, Crowe R, Kuperman S, Schuckit M, Bloom F, Hesselbrock V, Porjesz B, Cloninger CR, Rice J, Goate A: Description of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 11: Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. Genet Epidemiol. 1999, 17 (suppl 1): S25-S30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Foroud T, Edenberg HJ, Goate A, Rice J, Flury L, Koller DL, Bierut LJ, Conneally PM, Nurnberger JI, Bucholz KK, Li TK, Hesselbrock V, Crowe R, Schuckit M, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Reich T: Alcoholism susceptibility loci: confirmation studies in a replicate sample and further mapping. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000, 24: 933-945. 10.1097/00000374-200007000-00001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Saccone NL, Kwon JM, Corbett J, Goate A, Rochberg N, Edenberg HJ, Foroud T, Li TK, Begleiter H, Reich T, Rice JP: A genome screen of maximum number of drinks as an alcoholism phenotype. Am J Med Genet. 2000, 96: 632-637. 10.1002/1096-8628(20001009)96:5<632::AID-AJMG8>3.0.CO;2-#.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. O'Connell JR, Weeks DE: The VITESSE algorithm for rapid exact multilocus linkage analysis via genotype set-recoding and fuzzy inheritance. Nat Genet. 1995, 11: 402-408. 10.1038/ng1295-402.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenberg DA, Abreu P, Hodge SE: The power to detect linkage in complex disease by means of simple LOD-score analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 1998, 63: 870-879. 10.1086/301997.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hodge SE: Model-free vs. model-based linkage analysis: a false dichotomy?. Am J Med Genet. 2001, 105: 62-64. 10.1002/1096-8628(20010108)105:1<62::AID-AJMG1063>3.3.CO;2-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kong A, Cox NJ: Allele-sharing models: LOD scores and accurate linkage tests. Am J Hum Genet. 1997, 61: 1179-1188. 10.1086/301592.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Young A: Genetic Analysis System (GAS), version 2.0. Oxford, Oxford University. 1993Google Scholar
  14. Sham PC, Purcell S: Equivalence between Haseman-Elston and variance-components linkage analyses for sib pairs. Am J Hum Genet. 2001, 68: 1527-1532. 10.1086/320593.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffy DL: Sib-pair computer software, version 0.99.9. 2002Google Scholar
  16. Elston RC: Algorithms and inferences: the challenge of multifactorial diseases. Am J Hum Genet. 1997, 60: 255-262.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lander E, Kruglyak L: Genetic dissection of complex traits: guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat Genet. 1995, 11: 241-247. 10.1038/ng1195-241.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rao DC, Gu C: False positives and false negatives in genome scans. Adv Genet. 2001, 42: 487-498.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Suarez BK, Parsian A, Hampe CL, Todd RD, Reich T, Cloninger CR: Linkage disequilibria at the D2 dopamine receptor locus (DRD2) in alcoholics and controls. Genomics. 1994, 19: 12-20. 10.1006/geno.1994.1005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gejman PV, Ram A, Gelernter J, Friedman E, Cao Q, Pickar D: No structural mutation in the dopamine D2 receptor gene in alcoholism or schizophrenia: analysis using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. JAMA. 1994, 271: 204-208. 10.1001/jama.271.3.204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wyszynski et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd 2003

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement