4.7 Article

Genetic predictors of weight loss in overweight and obese subjects

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-47283-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ARAID (Aragon Investigacion y Desarrollo)
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [PI15/01983, PI13/02507, PI12/01321]
  3. CIBERCV
  4. Cuenca Villoro Foundation
  5. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  6. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) of the European Union A way to make Europe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of our study was to investigate a large cohort of overweight subjects consuming a homogeneous diet to identify the genetic factors associated with weight loss that could be used as predictive markers in weight loss interventions. We retrospectively recruited subjects (N = 788) aged over 18 years with a Body Mass Index (BMI) between 25 and 40 kg/m(2) who were treated at our lipid unit for at least one year from 2008 to 2016, and we also recruited a control group (168 patients) with normal BMIs. All participants received counselling from a nutritionist that included healthy diet and physical activity recommendations. We genotyped 25 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in 25 genes that were previously associated with obesity and calculated genetic scores that were derived from 25 SNVs. The risk allele in CADM2 showed a higher frequency in overweight and obese subjects than in controls (p = 0.007). The mean follow-up duration was 5.58 +/- 2.68 years. Subjects with lower genetic scores showed greater weight loss during the follow-up period. The genetic score was the variable that best explained the variations in weight from the baseline. The genetic score explained 2.4% of weight change variance at one year and 1.6% of weight change variance at the end of the follow-up period after adjusting for baseline weight, sex, age and years of follow-up.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available