Skip to main content

Table 3 Genotype analysis of HNF1A gene, VDR gene and FTO gene polymorphisms

From: Maternal genetic contribution to pre-pregnancy obesity, gestational weight gain, and gestational diabetes mellitus

 

Controls, n

Gestational diabetes, n

OR (95% CI)

p

FTO gene rs9939609 (%)

   

0.011*

 Co-dominant wild type TT

73

59

  

  Heterozygous AT

54

62

1.42 (0.86–2.24)

0.169**

  Homozygous AA

18

39

2.68 (1.39–4.13)

0.003***

 Dominant (AT + AA/TT)

72 vs. 73

101 vs. 59

1.73 (1.12–2.74)

0.018

 Recessive (AA/AT + TT)

18 vs. 127

39 vs. 121

2.27 (1.23–4.19)

0.007

HNF1 gene I27L rs1169288 (%)

   

0.009*

 Co-dominant wild type GG

50

33

  

  Heterozygous GT

78

94

1.82 (1.13–3.12)

0.026**

  Homozygous TT

17

33

2.94 (1.41–4.16)

0.003***

 Dominant (GT + TT/GG)

95 vs. 50

127 vs. 33

2.02 (1.21–3.38)

0.007

 Recessive (TT/GT + GG)

17 vs. 128

33 vs. 127

1.95 (1.13–3.49)

0.036

HNF1 gene S487N rs2464196 (%)

   

0.919*

 Co-dominant wild type CC

61

64

  

  Heterozygous CT

62

72

1.10 (0.67–1.80)

0.684**

  Homozygous TT

22

24

1.04 (0.52–2.04)

0.910***

 Dominant (CT + TT/CC)

84 vs. 61

96 vs. 64

1.11 (0.70–1.76)

0.683

 Recessive (TT/CT + CC)

22 vs. 123

24 vs 136

0.98 (0.52–1.84)

0.966

HNF1 gene A98V rs1800574 (%)

   

0.433*

 Co-dominant wild type CC

121

130

  

  Heterozygous CT

22

24

1.01 (0.54–1.90)

0.962**

  Homozygous TT

2

6

2.79 (0.55–12.45)

0.196***

 Dominant model (CT + TT/CC)

24 vs. 121

30 vs. 130

1.16 (0.64–2.10)

0.615

 Recessive model (TT/CT + CC)

2 vs. 143

6 vs. 154

2.78 (0.55–12.5)

0.196

VDR gene ApaI rs7975232 (%)

   

0.199*

 Co-dominant wild type AA

52

48

  

  Heterozygous AC

73

78

1.15 (0.69–1.91)

0.571**

  Homozygous CC

20

34

1.84 (0.93–3.62)

0.076***

 Dominant (AC + CC/AA)

93 vs. 52

112 vs. 48

1.30 (0.80–2.10)

0.279

 Recessive (CC/AA + AC)

20 vs. 125

34 vs. 126

1.68 (0.92–3.02)

0.088

VDR gene TaqI rs731236 (%)

   

0.472*

 Co-dominant wild type TT

82

81

  

  Heterozygous CT

33

37

1.13 (0.64–1.98)

0.658**

  Homozygous CC

30

42

1.41 (0.80–2.48)

0.222***

 Dominant (CT + CC/TT)

63 vs. 82

79 vs. 81

1.26 (0.82–2.04)

0.301

 Recessive (CC/CT + TT)

30 vs. 115

42 vs. 118

1.36 (0.81–2.32)

0.253

VDR gene BsmI rs1544410 (%)

   

0.461*

 Co-dominant wild type AA

57

53

  

  Heterozygous AG

52

63

1.32 (0.78–2.24)

0.290**

  Homozygous GG

36

45

1.37 (0.76–2.44)

0.284***

 Dominant (AG + GG/AA)

88 vs. 57

108 vs. 53

1.34 (0.841–2.15)

0.215

 Recessive (GG/AG + AA)

36 vs. 109

45 vs. 116

1.18 (0.71–1.97)

0.515

VDR gene FokI rs2228570 (%)

   

0.191*

 Co-dominant wild type CC

78

76

  

  Heterozygous CT

43

44

1.05 (0.62–1.77)

0.855**

  Homozygous TT

24

40

1.71 (0.94–3.10)

0.076***

 Dominant (CT + TT/CC)

67 vs. 78

84 vs. 76

1.28 (0.82–2.01)

0.272

 Recessive (TT/CT + CC)

24 vs. 121

40 vs. 120

1.68 (0.95–2.59)

0.070

  1. Categorical variables were analyzed with Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, where appropriate. Multiple logistic regression analysis and Fisher’s exact test were tested using models: dominant (major allele homozygotes vs heterozygotes + minor allele homozygotes), recessive (major allele homozygotes + heterozygotes vs minor allele homozygotes) and codominant (major allele homozygotes vs heterozygote and minor allele homozygotes vs major allele homozygotes)
  2. Italics represents significant p-values
  3. *p Wild vs homozygous vs heterozygous
  4. **p heterozygous vs wild
  5. ***p homozygous vs wild type