4.4 Article

Genetic Determinants of Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 2554-2561

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-03878-5

Keywords

Genetic risk scores; Weight loss; Genetics; Gastric bypass; Bariatric surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The weight loss after bariatric surgery shows considerable individual variation. Twin studies of response to dietary interventions and studies of bariatric surgery patients suggest that genetic differences may play a role. This study aimed to examine the effect of three genetic risk scores on the inter-individual variation in excess body mass index loss (EBMIL) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Furthermore, we searched among known adiposity-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for genetic determinants of the inter-individual variation in EBMIL. Methods Patients with morbid obesity underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and were genotyped (n = 577). Two genetic risk scores for weight loss after bariatric surgery and a genetic risk score for body mass index were calculated. Associations between the genetic risk scores and EBMIL were evaluated. Lasso regression was performed on 126 SNPs known to be associated with adiposity. Results The average EBMIL was 76.9% (range 21.7-149.2%). EBMIL was 81.1% (SD 20.6) and 73.9% (SD 21.7) in the high and low tertile groups of a genetic risk score for weight loss. Patients with a low genetic risk score for body mass index (in the lowest 5% percentile) had an EBMIL of 68.8% (SD 20.6, p = 0.018). Thirteen adiposity-related SNPs were identified to associate with EBMIL through lasso regression. Discussion A genetic risk score was associated with EBMIL after bariatric surgery, but may not yet be applicable to clinical practice. Patients genetically predisposed to low body mass index had lower weight loss after bariatric surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available