Evidence of Linkage and Association with Body Fatness and Abdominal Fat on Chromosome 15q26
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we undertook a two-step fine mapping of a 20-megabase region around a quantitative trait locus previously reported on chromosome 15q26 for abdominal subcutaneous fat (ASF) in an extended sample of 707 subjects from 202 families from the Quebec Family Study. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURE: First, 19 microsatellites (in addition to the 7 markers initially available on 15q24-q26; total = 26) were genotyped and tested for linkage with abdominal total fat, abdominal visceral fat, and ASF assessed by computed tomography and with fat mass (FM) using variance component-based approach on age- and sex-adjusted phenotypes. Second, 16 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped and tested for association using family-based association tests. RESULTS: After the fine mapping, the peak logarithm of odds ratio (LOD) score (marker D15S1004) increased from 2.79 to 3.26 for ASF and from 3.52 to 4.48 for FM, whereas for abdominal total fat, the peak linkage (marker D15S996) decreased from 2.22 to 1.53. No evidence of linkage was found for abdominal visceral fat. Overall, for genotyped SNPs, three variants located in the putative MCTP2 gene were significantly associated with FM and the three abdominal fat phenotypes (p <or= 0.05). The major allele and genotype of rs1424695 were associated with higher adiposity values (p < 0.004). The same trend was found for the two other polymorphisms (p < 0.05). None of the other SNPs was associated with adiposity phenotypes. The linkage for FM became non-significant (LOD = 0.84) after adjustment for the MCTP2 polymorphisms, whereas the one for ASF remained unchanged. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that the MCTP2 gene, located on chromosome 15q26, influences adiposity. Other studies will be needed to investigate the function of the MCTP2 gene and its role in obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".