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