SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Alcohol Dependence;
  • Genome-Wide Association Study;
  • Case–Control Study;
  • Family Study;
  • Gene Expression

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information

Background:  Alcohol dependence is a complex disease, and although linkage and candidate gene studies have identified several genes associated with the risk for alcoholism, these explain only a portion of the risk.

Methods:  We carried out a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on a case–control sample drawn from the families in the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. The cases all met diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth Edition; controls all consumed alcohol but were not dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs. To prioritize among the strongest candidates, we genotyped most of the top 199 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (p ≤ 2.1 × 10−4) in a sample of alcohol-dependent families and performed pedigree-based association analysis. We also examined whether the genes harboring the top SNPs were expressed in human brain or were differentially expressed in the presence of ethanol in lymphoblastoid cells.

Results:  Although no single SNP met genome-wide criteria for significance, there were several clusters of SNPs that provided mutual support. Combining evidence from the case–control study, the follow-up in families, and gene expression provided strongest support for the association of a cluster of genes on chromosome 11 (SLC22A18, PHLDA2, NAP1L4, SNORA54, CARS, and OSBPL5) with alcohol dependence. Several SNPs nominated as candidates in earlier GWAS studies replicated in ours, including CPE, DNASE2B, SLC10A2, ARL6IP5, ID4, GATA4, SYNE1, and ADCY3.

Conclusions:  We have identified several promising associations that warrant further examination in independent samples.

Alcohol dependence (alcoholism) is a major health and social issue affecting 4 to 5% of the United States population at any given time (Li et al., 2007), with a lifetime prevalence of 12.5% (Hasin et al., 2007). Alcohol dependence is characterized by serious problems in multiple domains. Family, twin, and adoption studies have consistently demonstrated a substantial genetic contribution to disease etiology (Kendler et al., 1994; McGue, 1999; Nurnberger et al., 2004; Pickens et al., 1991). Alcohol dependence is a complex disease in which both genetic and environmental factors affect susceptibility.

Strategies for identifying genes in which variations contribute to the risk for alcohol dependence have employed linkage analysis or candidate gene approaches (Edenberg and Foroud, 2006). These methods have led to the identification of several genes associated with alcohol dependence, including GABRA2 (Covault et al., 2004; Drgon et al., 2006; Edenberg et al., 2004; Enoch et al., 2006, 2008; Fehr et al., 2006; Lappalainen et al., 2005; Lind et al., 2008; Soyka et al., 2008), ADH4 (Edenberg and Foroud, 2006; Edenberg et al., 2006; Guindalini et al., 2005; Kuo et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2005b, 2006), GABRG3 (Dick et al., 2004), CHRM2 (Luo et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2004), NFKB1 (Edenberg et al., 2008b), OPRK1 (Edenberg et al., 2008a; Xuei et al., 2006), PDYN (Xuei et al., 2006), NPY2R (Wetherill et al., 2008), ANKK1/DRD2 (Dick et al., 2007b); CHRNA5 (Wang et al., 2009); GRM8 (Chen et al., 2009), TACR3 (Foroud et al., 2008), and GABRR2 (Xuei et al., 2010). However, the effect of variation in each of these genes is small, and much of the genetic contribution to the risk for alcoholism remains to be discovered.

We completed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify genes contributing to alcohol dependence, defined according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Both the alcohol-dependent cases and the controls have completed a rigorous clinical evaluation, with controls being drinkers who are free from alcohol dependence or abuse by several diagnostic classification systems (DSM-IIIR, DSM-IV, ICD-10) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, 1994; World Health Organization, 1993), and also free of dependence on illicit drugs. To prioritize among the most promising single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified from the GWAS, we genotyped the top SNPs in a sample of alcohol-dependent families and performed family-based association analysis, and tested whether they fell within or near genes whose expression is affected by alcohol exposure and were expressed in brain.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information

Ascertainment of Subjects

Alcohol-dependent probands were ascertained through alcohol treatment programs and evaluated at 7 centers in the United States: Indiana University, State University of New York Health Science Center Brooklyn, University of Connecticut, University of Iowa, University of California/San Diego, Washington University/St Louis, and Howard University as part of the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (Begleiter et al., 1995; Edenberg, 2002; Foroud et al., 2000; Reich et al., 1998). The institutional review boards of all participating institutions approved the study. After providing informed consent, the probands and their relatives were administered a validated poly-diagnostic instrument, the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA) (Bucholz et al., 1994; Hesselbrock et al., 1999), which allows assessment of alcohol dependence under several diagnostic systems. Details of the ascertainment and assessment have previously been published (Begleiter et al., 1995; Foroud et al., 2000; Reich et al., 1998) and are available at zork.wustl.edu/niaaa/coga_instruments/resources.html.

The same 7 centers also recruited community probands through driver’s license records, random mailings to employees and students at a university, and attendees at medical and dental clinics. After providing informed consent, the community probands and their relatives were administered the same SSAGA interview as the alcohol-dependent probands and their families.

Genome-Wide Association Study

Case–Control Sample Selection.

For the GWAS, a sample of genetically unrelated cases and controls were selected from this pool of alcohol-dependent and community-ascertained families. Cases were all alcohol dependent by DSM-IV criteria at some time during their lives and were selected from the families ascertained through alcohol-dependent probands. The selected controls were required to have consumed alcohol but not to have a diagnosis of alcohol abuse, dependence or harmful use by any of the 4 diagnostic systems assessed in the SSAGA (Feighner, DSM-IIIR, DSM-IV, ICD-10) at any time in their lives. Because there might be shared genetic vulnerability with other substance use disorders, the selected controls also could not meet criteria for DSM-IIIR or DSM-IV diagnoses of abuse or dependence on cocaine, marijuana, opioids, sedatives, or stimulants. Controls were selected from both the community-recruited families and the families recruited through an alcohol-dependent proband, but could not share a known common ancestor with a case. Controls older than 25 years were preferentially selected, to increase the probability that they were beyond the peak age of risk for developing alcohol dependence. A subset of the COGA participants were assessed on multiple occasions; if a subject was assessed more than once, only one whose diagnosis or lack thereof was consistent across time was selected.

Microarray Genotyping, Quality Assessment, and Statistical Analysis.

Genotyping was performed by the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). DNA sources included blood (n = 1453) and lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCL, n = 492). Genotyping was performed using the Illumina Infinium II assay protocol (Gunderson et al., 2006) with hybridization to Illumina HumanHap1M BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA), which contain 1,199,187 markers with a mean spacing of 2.4 kb. Allele cluster definitions for each SNP were determined using Illumina BeadStudio Genotyping Module version 3.1.14 and the combined intensity data from 96% of study samples. The resulting cluster definition file was used on all study samples to determine genotype calls and quality scores. Genotype calls were made when a genotype yielded a quality score (Gencall value) of 0.15 or higher. The final raw dataset released by CIDR to the investigators and to dbGaP contained 1,041,465 SNPs for 1,945 unique DNA samples from case and control subjects. Twenty-seven samples were removed because of poor sample quality before release of the dataset on dbGaP (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=gap; Accession number: phs000125.v1.p1). Blind duplicate reproducibility was 99.97%.

Starting with the dbGaP data, additional quality control measures were applied to both the samples and the SNPs. Samples having genotypes for at least 98% of the SNPs were considered for inclusion in analyses. These samples were rigorously checked for cryptic relatedness, population stratification, and related issues. Thirteen additional samples were removed from further analyses because of poor sample quality (n = 4) or cryptic relatedness among subjects (n = 9). A principal component-based analysis was performed in PLINK (Purcell et al., 2007) to cluster these samples along with HapMap reference samples (CEU, YRI, CHB, and JPT) to assign the study subjects to groups of predominantly European and African ancestry. The final European American (EA) sample included 847 alcohol-dependent cases and 552 controls (n = 1,399 individuals). The African American (AA) sample contained 345 cases and 140 controls (n = 485 individuals). The remaining 21 individuals did not cluster with either of the 2 samples and were not analyzed.

SNPs with a call rate of 98% or greater in the EAs (n = 1,015,550) were included and subjected to further quality control. From these, SNPs were removed if the minor allele frequency was less than 0.01 in the combined case and control dataset (n = 161,048) or if among those with minor allele frequency ≥0.01 there was significant deviation from Hardy Weinberg equilibrium (p < 10−4) in the controls (n = 1,127). The final dataset for analysis of EAs consisted of 853,375 SNPs that passed all quality control measures. Similar quality control thresholds were applied to the 1,010,230 SNPs with a call rate of 98% or greater in the AAs. This resulted in removal of 68,600 SNPs with a minor allele frequency below 0.01 in the combined AA case and control sample and 332 SNPs that demonstrated significant deviation from Hardy Weinberg equilibrium in AA controls. The final dataset for the AA sample consisted of 941,298 SNPs. Positions of all SNPs are from dbSNP build 130, genome build 36.3.

Given the limited number of non-EA subjects in the sample, and that self-defined ethnicity carries nongenetic as well as genetic differences, we focused our primary analyses on the larger EA subsample. Logistic regression covarying for gender was employed to test for the association of each SNP with alcohol dependence, using an additive model. Odds ratios and p values were computed to assess the strength of the association. All analyses were performed using PLINK (Purcell et al., 2007).

Previously, stronger association results were often obtained when the alcohol-dependent cases were limited to those with greater correlates of disease severity, such as earlier age of onset, comorbid drug dependence, or higher likelihood of conduct disorder symptoms (Agrawal et al., 2006; Dick et al., 2007a; Edenberg et al., 2008b; Foroud et al., 2008). We performed secondary analyses to identify potential associations with early-onset alcohol dependence. A median split of our sample (Table 1) was performed and those alcohol-dependent cases with an onset of 22 years or younger (n = 454) were classified as having earlier onset of alcohol dependence. Logistic regression using the additive model with sex as a covariate was employed to test for association between the genotyped SNPs and the phenotype of early-onset alcohol dependence.

Table 1.   Demographics of the GWAS Sample
 Alcohol-dependent casesControls
EAAAEAAA
  1. EA, European American; AA, African American.

  2. *Not applicable.

Number847345552140
Gender (% female) 30.3 35.9 71.6 71.4
Alcohol dependent847345 0  0
Age at onset of dependence, median (25%ile, 75%ile) 22 (18, 27) 25 (20, 31)NA*NA*
Age at last interview, median (25%ile, 75%ile)NA*NA* 47 (38, 55) 39 (32, 49)
Marijuana dependent (%) 34.7 33.9  0  0
Cocaine dependent (%) 35.1 56.2  0  0
Dependent on other illicit substances (opioids, stimulants, sedatives) (%) 29.5 13  0  0

Family-Based Replication Study

Family Sample.

Previously, a set of 262 genetically informative, multiplex alcohol dependence pedigrees, each with at least 3 first degree relatives who met lifetime criteria for both DSM-IIIR alcohol dependence (American Psychiatric Association,1987) and Feighner definite alcoholism (Feighner et al., 1972) were selected from the larger COGA sample and used in linkage and family-based association studies (Edenberg and Foroud, 2006; Edenberg et al., 2004; Foroud et al., 2000; Reich et al., 1998); 59 additional trios were also genotyped. After reviewing the results from the primary analysis of DSM-IV alcohol dependence, the 199 SNPs with the smallest p values for association (p ≤ 2.1 × 10−4) were selected for genotyping in this family-based sample. Genotypes were completed on 180 of these SNPs; the others did not design into assays or did not provide useable data.

Some members of these families, primarily probands, were included in the GWAS case control sample. There were 426 individuals included in the EA GWAS sample (326 cases; 100 controls) that were also a member of the families used for replication. The analytic methods applied to detect association in the case control and family-based tests of association are statistically independent (Abecasis et al., 2000; Vogel et al., 2009; Zuo et al., 2009).

Genotyping, Quality Assessment, and Statistical Analysis.

Genotyping assays were designed for the Sequenom MassArray system (Sequenom, San Diego, CA) using MassArray Assay Design Software. Genotyping used iPLEX Gold assays (Sequenom), with alleles discriminated by mass spectrometry. Assays were tested on 2 independent groups, 40 unrelated EA individuals and 40 unrelated AA individuals obtained from Coriell Cell Repositories. SNPs that were not in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium in both groups were not genotyped in the COGA families. All SNPs were tested for Mendelian inheritance using the program PEDCHECK (O’Connell and Weeks, 1998).

Family-based association analyses were performed using the pedigree disequilibrium test (PDT) (Martin et al., 2000) as implemented in the program UNPHASED (version 2.404) (Dudbridge, 2003). Affected individuals were defined as those meeting criteria for DSM-IV alcohol dependence. The PDT utilizes data from all available trios in a family, as well as discordant sibships. We report results using the PDT average option, which weights each family equally in computing the overall test statistic. Analysis was also performed classifying as affected only those DSM-IV alcohol dependence cases who also met criteria for early onset, defined as with the case control sample, as onset by age 22 or younger. After examining results in the family sample, 5 additional SNPs (cSNPs or SNPs in 3′ UTRs) from regions with evidence for replication were selected for genotyping in the family sample.

Gene Expression Analyses

In a separate study, we are analyzing the effects of ethanol exposure on gene expression in immortalized LCLs. Details of the gene expression studies will be reported separately; here, we note whether there was an effect of alcohol exposure on the expression of any of our top candidate genes. Briefly, 42 LCLs from subjects in the COGA study were either treated for 24 hour with 75 mM ethanol or left untreated. The RNA was extracted and purified, and aliquots were analyzed on Affymetrix GeneChip® Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 microarrays following standard procedures. Results were analyzed by ANOVA with factors of treatment, phenotype (cells from alcoholics or controls), and sex (Edenberg et al., in preparation). False discovery rates (FDR) were calculated using the Storey q value package (Storey and Tibshirani, 2003).

Gene expression was assayed using standard Affymetrix procedures on samples from 9 different brain regions (prefrontal cortex, cerebral cortex, thalamus, visual cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, caudate, putamen, and cerebellum) of 4 individuals (1 each male alcoholic, female alcoholic, male control, female control), obtained from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)-supported brain bank at the Tissue Resource Center located in the Neuropathology Unit of the Department of Pathology, University of Sydney, Australia. Hybridization was to GeneChip® Human Gene 1.0 ST Arrays. Genes were presumed expressed in brain if the average expression level of the 4 arrays from any region was higher than the average expression level of the negative probe sets on the arrays (Edenberg et al., in preparation). Genes from the expression studies were matched to genes from the SNP microarrays by matching gene symbols based on Affymetrix annotations.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information

Association Analysis in the GWAS Case–Control Sample

The final EA case–control analytic sample included 1399 individuals. Cases all met lifetime DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence; many were also dependent upon other drugs (Table 1). Controls all had consumed alcohol, but were not affected by alcohol or drug abuse or dependence; most were well past the primary age of risk for alcohol or illicit drug disorders (Table 1). Thus the controls provide a strong phenotypic contrast to the cases.

Association of the SNPs with alcohol dependence was carried out employing an additive model, with sex as a covariate. The λ value (inflation factor) after these adjustments was 1.049; the Q–Q plot for this analysis is shown in Fig. 1. None of the SNPs analyzed met conventional criteria for genome-wide significance. However, eleven SNPs had p values <10−5, and a total of 93 SNPs had p values ≤10−4 (Table S1 shows data from all SNPs with p ≤ 10−3). There were many genes or regions in which surrounding SNPs provided additional support for association (Table S1). A region of chromosome 11 (Fig. 2A) had many SNPs among those with lowest p values. This was not because of a single SNP in high linkage disequilibrium (LD) with other SNPs; including the most significant SNP (rs4758533) as a covariate in the logistic regression model decreased the evidence of association with several SNPs near the right end but did not substantially alter the evidence of association with most of the SNPs in the region (see also Fig. 2B, which shows that most of the significant SNPs in the chromosome 11 region are not in high LD with rs4758533).

image

Figure 1.  Q–Q plot for association analysis of the alcohol dependence phenotype. Observed log p values (black dots) and expected log p values (line) are plotted versus the expected log p value (x-axis).

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 2.  Chromosome 11 region with supporting evidence for association. (A) GWAS data from primary analysis and analysis of early onset and data from family analysis. All single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are plotted as −log10(p value) versus position along the chromosome; circles = GWAS alcohol dependence, squares are GWAS early onset; for GWAS data, the scale is on the left. Family data are also presented for those SNPs tested; green triangles are alcohol dependence, brown triangles are early onset; for the family data, the scale is on the right. (B) LD between the SNP with lowest p value and other SNPs in the region, depicted in a SNAP plot (Johnson et al., 2008). Along the x-axis is the physical position in the region (in kb) with known genes shown in their orientation. The left Y-axis denotes the association test result as −log(p value) corresponding to squares in the figure. The red diamond identifies the primary SNP result labeled with an rs# and p value. The darkness of the squares indicate the pairwise linkage disequilibrium with the primary SNP; the scale for this is shown in the top right corner. r2 values were obtained from this study using Haploview (Barrett et al., 2005). The right Y-axis indicates the recombination rate, obtained from the available HapMap data in the CEPH Caucasians and shown within the figure by the solid blue line.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Secondary analysis tested for association within the subset of cases that met criteria for early onset of alcohol dependence (≤22 years; n = 454). No SNP met genome-wide significance. The SNPs with the smallest p values in the 2 analyses substantially overlap: 25 of the 100 SNPs with p ≤ 10−4 for alcohol dependence also had p ≤ 10−4 for early-onset alcohol dependence, despite the smaller sample size (Table S1). Notably, the odds ratios for the early-onset phenotype and the dependence phenotype are very similar: of the top 199 SNPs for dependence, 166 had odds ratios for both phenotypes within ±0.10 of each other.

Data from the AA case control sample provided nominal evidence of association for DSM-IV alcohol dependence for 6 SNPs among the top 985 from European Americans; these were in TMEM132C, EPHA7, OPA3, KCNMA1 (encoding a potassium large conductance calcium-activated channel important in neuronal excitability), DMRTA2 and SPTA1 (Table S1). EPHA7 encodes ephrin receptor A7; ephrin receptors are tyrosine kinases implicated in the development of the nervous system. A secondary analysis of the smaller AA sample showed a different set of SNPs that provided evidence for association with alcohol dependence (Table S2). Among the 790 SNPs at p ≤ 10−3, 41 were nominally significant in the EA group; prominent among them were 7 SNPs (several, but not all, in high LD) in the region of SELL and SELE, 2 selectins (adhesion/homing receptors), 4 in LOC91431, encoding the protein prematurely terminated mRNA decay factor-like, and SNPs in PPARG (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma), CTNN2 (catenin, alpha 2). Also of note is a SNP between the leptin receptor (LEPR) and PDE4B, a cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase that has been implicated in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Results of Family-Based Association Analysis

Ten of the 180 SNPs genotyped in the sample of 262 genetically informative, alcohol-dependent families provided nominally significant (p ≤ 0.05) evidence of association with alcohol dependence (Tables 2 and S1); 8 of these were also nominally significant for the early-onset phenotype. Five of these SNPs lie in 1 region of chromosome 11 (Fig. 2A), which contained CARS (all 3 tested SNPs replicated), OSBPL5, NAP1L4. The other SNPs were in BBX, SLC9A8, OPA3, TOX2, and near CD53. Several additional SNPs near other clusters of significant SNPs were also genotyped and also provided evidence for association (Table S1), including additional SNPs in and near CARS, OSPBL5, SLC9A8, SLC2A14, SOX5, COL8A1, and ADCK1.

Table 2.   SNPs and Genes With Supporting Evidence
SNPCHRPositionGene within 15 kbEuropean American case–controlFamily sample (PDT)Gene expressionAfrican American case–control
MAFAD (p value)AD OREarly onset AD (p value)Early onset AD ORAD (p value)Early onset AD (p value)Expr in brainFOLD Et/CFDRMAFAD (p value)AD OR
  1. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with evidence for alcohol dependence in the GWAS that either had support from the family-based analyses (p ≤ 0.05) or evidence for differential expression in the presence of ethanol (≥1.2-fold change, with FDR ≤0.05) are listed by position along the genome based upon dbSNP build 130 and genome build 36.3. Genes within 15 kb of the SNP are shown (blank means no gene is within 15 kb). MAF, minor allele frequency. AD p value is the p value for association with alcohol dependence in the GWAS EA sample; AD OR is the odds ratio for this association. Early onset AD p value is the p value for association with alcohol dependence in the GWAS with affected status defined as having an onset of alcohol dependence at or below the median (22 years); Early onset AD OR is the odds ratio for this association. Family sample [pedigree disequilibrium test (PDT)] AD and Early onset AD use these same phenotypic definitions but are analyzed by PDT in the families; bold indicates p ≤ 0.05. Expression in brain: yes, reliably detected in at least 1 of 9 brain regions; no, not reliably detected; blank, no data; FOLD ET/C, ratio of gene expression in immortalized lymphoblastoid cell lines treated with ethanol for 24 hours compared to untreated cells; FDR, false discovery rate for this ratio, calculated according to Storey and Tibshirani (Storey and Tibshirani, 2003). MAF and p value for alcohol dependence in the smaller African American sample of the GWAS are also presented for comparison.

rs3010931112,606,911DHRS30.043.9E-040.51.9E-030.5  Yes1.222.9E-030.253.7E-011.2
rs3438191111,144,013 0.271.5E-040.78.0E-060.60.0510.0017Yes1.041.8E-030.259.4E-011.0
rs65406811209,560,196RCOR3 TRAF50.166.8E-040.71.2E-020.7  Yes−1.285.6E-040.176.0E-010.9
rs12471136272,642,825SEC15L20.118.0E-041.64.3E-031.6  Yes1.347.7E-160.218.4E-011.0
rs134104762161,118,788 0.271.2E-040.73.1E-030.70.160.12No1.211.6E-070.404.0E-011.1
rs168492092213,319,466 0.235.0E-041.49.3E-031.4  Yes−1.203.9E-020.275.8E-010.9
rs23789938,783,515OXTR0.372.2E-041.41.1E-031.40.120.20Yes1.361.8E-150.361.2E-010.8
rs1735460360,666,645FHIT0.033.7E-050.33.4E-050.20.510.91Yes1.253.2E-070.085.5E-011.2
rs27006673100,568,496 0.274.0E-041.47.8E-031.30.0130.0065No  0.433.1E-011.2
rs27005863100,577,480 0.273.5E-041.47.0E-031.30.00950.0056No  0.432.7E-011.2
rs22000193100,578,586 0.304.1E-041.48.3E-031.30.0190.012No  0.329.7E-011.0
rs27006483100,590,373 0.268.2E-041.41.2E-021.30.0460.022No  0.446.3E-010.9
rs105112603108,715,787BBX0.293.4E-060.64.7E-040.70.0100.028Yes1.138.5E-050.069.6E-011.0
rs119180923135,996,046EPHB10.139.7E-040.71.3E-030.6  Yes1.218.6E-180.453.2E-011.2
rs43849803183,941,763 0.423.2E-040.71.1E-030.7  Yes1.228.9E-110.466.3E-010.9
rs10029539431,401,050 0.493.1E-040.72.1E-020.80.550.052   0.216.6E-011.1
rs6881283591,091,413 0.245.6E-051.51.1E-041.60.690.83Yes1.521.1E-160.078.7E-011.0
rs93273325123,917,480 0.161.4E-041.62.1E-031.50.140.023Yes  0.146.1E-011.1
rs43882095125,786,272GRAMD30.294.7E-040.71.1E-030.7  Yes1.251.2E-140.256.0E-011.1
rs18833396132,642,677 0.052.7E-040.52.6E-030.5  Yes1.311.3E-140.428.7E-011.0
rs1982389737,693,476 0.052.3E-040.53.2E-030.50.160.021      
rs4728699787,006,685ABCB10.047.9E-040.51.6E-020.6  Yes1.392.4E-070.011.9E-012.9
rs69550637139,723,897SLC37A30.104.0E-050.61.5E-030.60.500.049Yes  0.301.9E-011.2
rs1763798686,621,112 0.095.5E-050.65.2E-050.50.570.76Yes−1.314.9E-140.037.6E-011.2
rs2094372977,186,279 0.251.1E-031.41.9E-031.4  Yes−1.301.8E-050.154.6E-011.2
rs175270691010,317,351 0.215.1E-040.71.7E-030.7  Yes−1.357.5E-110.034.8E-010.8
rs70785511025,214,732PRTFDC10.326.1E-041.42.7E-031.4  Yes−1.211.3E-070.253.1E-010.8
rs122191051078,843,546KCNMA10.141.5E-040.69.7E-050.60.120.036Yes  0.173.9E-020.7
rs19633510121,401,851RPS8P4 BAG30.101.3E-041.71.9E-021.50.520.42Yes1.391.1E-060.135.3E-010.9
rs2583442112,912,742SLC22A18 PHLDA20.301.2E-040.78.2E-040.70.0590.024Yes1.144.2E-020.093.3E-010.8
rs8505112,922,869NAP1L4-3′UTR     0.180.07Yes     
rs3814964112,956,083NAP1L4 SNORA540.317.4E-050.77.2E-040.70.0380.048Yes−1.089.2E-060.151.4E-010.7
rs4758621112,966,216NAP1L4 CARS0.323.7E-040.72.0E-030.70.150.06Yes  0.093.0E-010.8
rs12805661112,977,316NAP1L4 CARS0.291.5E-040.76.8E-040.70.0220.014Yes  0.093.0E-010.8
rs729662112,984,716NAP1L4 CARS0.298.5E-050.73.7E-040.70.0230.018Yes1.035.0E-020.093.2E-010.8
rs7481584112,985,665CARS0.299.5E-050.74.7E-040.70.0070.020Yes  0.131.2E-010.7
rs377765113,002,874CARS0.415.2E-040.74.6E-040.70.010.06Yes  0.124.6E-010.8
rs369461113,018,568CARS0.405.7E-040.74.8E-040.70.0140.039Yes  0.102.8E-010.8
rs2277301113,068,442OSBPL5-cSNP     0.960.76      
rs3741350113,085,603OSBPL5-cSNP     0.050.89      
rs4758533113,106,662OSBPL50.214.8E-050.71.3E-030.70.020.33   0.141.4E-010.7
rs4468331113,121,988OSBPL50.206.9E-040.75.1E-030.70.000.07   0.162.3E-011.3
rs110327021134,424,699CAT0.055.2E-040.52.9E-030.50.030.16 1.087.3E-050.317.8E-011.0
rs123661921142,261,639 0.121.3E-040.67.5E-030.70.180.011   0.169.6E-020.7
rs1050217211112,704,356TTC120.487.0E-040.72.1E-040.7  Yes−1.253.9E-030.105.3E-010.9
rs796337612796,509WNK1 LOC6475020.485.5E-040.78.7E-030.8  Yes1.305.0E-050.424.4E-010.9
rs7965203127,891,603SLC2A140.494.5E-041.43.7E-041.40.0350.022 −1.105.6E-040.461.8E-010.8
rs11612319127,908,192SLC2A14 NANOGP10.326.6E-050.74.4E-050.60.550.033Yes−1.105.6E-040.136.0E-011.1
rs5503381224,403,304SOX50.242.2E-040.78.9E-050.60.040.13Yes  0.299.7E-011.0
rs73113741227,851,172KLHDC50.143.9E-040.75.4E-030.70.520.83Yes1.251.2E-140.049.3E-011.0
rs11449621267,621,252CPM0.351.6E-040.79.0E-040.7  Yes1.331.7E-030.427.3E-011.1
rs11958121267,627,292CPM0.345.3E-040.72.5E-030.7  Yes1.282.0E-020.296.5E-020.7
rs1084702312125,010,473RPL22P190.162.3E-041.68.4E-051.70.050.20   0.129.4E-011.0
rs104838891477,627,258 0.193.4E-040.78.3E-040.60.040.46   0.037.6E-011.1
rs71647261557,502,958FAM81A0.126.0E-040.65.3E-040.6  Yes−1.223.8E-040.366.6E-010.9
rs71751671568,312,713 0.163.1E-040.73.8E-030.7  Yes1.221.8E-090.279.0E-011.0
rs19097661659,618,891 0.159.9E-051.61.4E-031.60.150.031Yes  0.411.2E-010.8
rs10372601768,668,860LOC390811 SSTR20.066.5E-052.34.3E-031.90.380.48Yes1.371.1E-090.296.7E-011.1
rs15684471770,348,607TMEM104 GRIN2C0.387.1E-040.72.6E-030.70.380.0087   0.367.5E-011.0
rs116520881770,351,427TMEM104 GRIN2C0.384.4E-040.71.3E-030.70.330.023   0.312.2E-011.2
rs5322411810,130,629 0.457.2E-040.72.9E-030.7  Yes−1.478.1E-100.425.3E-010.9
rs72450901854,786,303ZNF5320.021.3E-040.32.6E-030.40.460.70Yes−1.218.2E-030.227.3E-011.1
rs72421861866,132,841SOCS60.258.8E-041.41.4E-031.5  Yes1.259.7E-050.336.7E-010.9
rs23532031916,960,980CPAMD80.443.8E-041.41.6E-031.4  Yes−1.374.1E-030.306.5E-020.7
rs81115891950,726,398VASP OPA30.441.5E-041.48.3E-031.30.0280.018Yes  0.481.6E-020.7
rs116961932041,958,904 0.266.2E-050.74.4E-040.70.0300.010   0.293.0E-010.8
rs81181602047,868,043SLC9A80.502.0E-040.71.7E-030.70.010.09Yes  0.242.8E-011.2
rs48097602047,888,078SLC9A80.432.5E-041.41.4E-031.40.020.18Yes  0.436.4E-011.1
rs22812232047,917,648SLC9A80.422.2E-041.41.4E-031.40.020.18Yes−1.151.3E-040.456.1E-011.1
rs19960172051,356,045TSHZ20.364.6E-041.44.5E-031.30.160.049   0.172.0E-011.3
rs117044682246,037,678 0.076.8E-040.64.1E-030.6  Yes−1.371.3E-100.027.6E-020.4

Fifteen of the SNPs with the smallest p values for alcohol dependence (p ≤ 2.1 × 10−4) provided nominal evidence of association in the family sample with the early-onset alcohol dependence phenotype. In addition to the SNPs noted earlier, these included SLC37A3, KCNMA1, CDH8, ZNF608, and API5. A few candidate genes in which a SNP had p ≤ 2.1 × 10−4 in the GWAS or cluster of SNPs with p ≤ 10−3 were also tested in families, and significant support was found for CAT and GRIN2C (Table S1).

Expression of the Genes Containing the More Significant SNPs

We also tested whether the genes associated with alcohol dependence were differentially affected by ethanol exposure in LCLs. Forty of the SNPs listed in Table 2 were in genes expressed in brain and also significantly affected by ethanol in LCLs. One of the SNPs in CARS, rs729662 (synonymous, Pro706 in exon 19), was ranked 80 in the GWAS and was also significant in the family data (Table S1).

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information

Although the overall number of subjects was modest for a GWAS, the sample studied here had extensive phenotypic characterization and a strong contrast in substance dependence between affected and unaffected subjects. The affected subjects all met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence, whereas the controls did not meet criteria for alcohol dependence or abuse or harmful use, nor were they dependent on other illicit drugs. Many of the affected subjects (56.5%) were also dependent upon an illicit drug; while it is possible that risk for a more general substance dependence contributed to the association signal, testing for this was not judged to be feasible, given the sample size and reduction in power that would result. None of the SNPs tested met conventional criteria for genome-wide significance, probably because of the modest size of the sample. Therefore, it was important to use other lines of evidence to prioritize potential candidates. Regions in which several SNPs provided evidence for association were found. Evidence of association, with similar estimates of effect size (odds ratios), was found for many SNPs when the sample of alcohol-dependent individuals was dichotomized and only those with early-onset alcohol dependence were defined as cases. Early onset generally marks a group of more severe cases, often with comorbid psychiatric problems. Analyses of this subgroup have yielded smaller p values, despite the reduced sample size, in some previous studies (Agrawal et al., 2006; Dick et al., 2007a; Edenberg et al., 2008b; Foroud et al., 2008). We assessed segregation within alcohol-dependent families as a means to prioritize among our SNP results. We also used gene expression data as additional lines of support, testing whether a gene in or nearest the SNP was expressed in human brain samples. We tested whether the expression of the gene in LCLs was altered by ethanol exposure; 80% of the genes differentially expressed in LCLs after ethanol exposure are also expressed in at least 1 of the 9 brain regions we analyzed (Edenberg et al., in preparation).

Overall, the convergence of evidence supports a region on chromosome 11 as the strongest candidate. It contained many of the top SNPs from the case control sample, and several SNPs genotyped in the family sample support the association of this region with alcohol dependence and the early onset of dependence (Table 2; Fig. 2A,B; Table S1). This region contains 6 genes: SLC22A18 (solute carrier family 22, member 18, a poly-specific organic cation transporter), PHLDA2 (pleckstrin homology-like domain, family A, member 2, important in regulating placental growth), NAPIL4 (nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 4, a likely histone chaperone), CARS (cysteinyl-tRNA synthetase), OSBPL5 (oxysterol-binding protein-like protein 5, an intracellular lipid receptor that interacts with retinoic acid and estradiol), and SNORA54 (small nucleolar RNA, H/ACA box 54). The 4 genes that were assayed (PHLDA2, NAPIL4, CARS, OSBPL5) are expressed in the human brain. In LCLs, expression of SLC22A18 and PHLDA2 are increased 9 to 14% by ethanol exposure (FDR <0.05), while expression of NAP1L4 is decreased 8% by ethanol (FDR <10−5; Edenberg et al., in preparation). These lines of evidence suggest that 1 or more of these genes is a good candidate for affecting the risk for alcoholism. Although not previously considered candidates for affecting the risk for alcoholism, several of these genes have functions that might relate to alcoholism, such as growth regulation, cation transport, and lipid signaling. Careful dissection of a quantitative trait locus (QTL) hotspot on mouse distal chromosome 1 (Mozhui et al., 2008) that includes QTLs affecting alcohol dependence (Buck et al., 2002), alcohol withdrawal (Crabbe, 1996), and alcohol-induced locomotor activity (Downing et al., 2003) showed that genes located in the QTL had a trans effect on expression in nervous tissue of a set of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (Mozhui et al., 2008). As noted by Mozhui and colleagues (2008), the nervous system depends heavily on finely tuned protein metabolism in dendrites and axons (Chang et al., 2006; Malgaroli et al., 2006). Thus, CARS is a reasonable candidate.

One of the top-ranked SNPs was in the promoter region of BBX (Table 2); this SNP was also significant in the family sample, for both alcohol dependence and early onset (Table 2). Several additional SNPs just upstream of BBX were associated with both phenotypes in the GWAS (Table S1). BBX is widely expressed in human tissues and encodes the human homolog of Drosophila Bobbysox, an HMG-BOX transcription factor. The potential role of BBX in affecting risk for alcohol dependence is likely to be complex; BBX mRNA levels are themselves significantly increased by alcohol exposure (13% increase in lymphoblastoid cell lines, FDR = 9 × 10−5; Table 2). A SNP in intron 1 of KCNMA1 provided evidence in subjects of both European and African ancestry, and in the family sample (Table 2), KCNMA1 is expressed in brain, and encodes potassium large conductance calcium-activated channel, subfamily M, alpha member 1, a protein important in controlling neuronal excitability.

We examined results in our case control sample for genes that were previously associated with alcoholism in our family-based sample. Among the best-supported findings was the ANKK1/DRD2 region (Dick et al., 2007b), in which 24 SNPs were nominally associated with dependence and 22 with early onset; SNPs extending through TTC12 were also significant, supporting results from Yang and colleagues (2007). Three GWAS SNPs in NFKB1 were nominally associated with early-onset alcoholism, as were more extending upstream, consistent with our previous work (Edenberg et al., 2008). Thirty-two SNPs in GRM8 (Chen et al., 2009), encoding metabotropic glutamate receptor 8, were associated with early onset of dependence. There was also nominal support for PDYN (Xuei et al., 2006), CHRNA3 and CHRNA5 (Wang et al., 2009), and (among AA only) CHRM2 (Wang et al., 2004). In the ADH gene cluster (Edenberg et al., 2006), SNPs in ADH4 were not significant in this GWAS, although 15 SNPs (particularly in the region between ADH1B and ADH1A) were. Genes encoding GABAA receptors continued to provide evidence for association with alcoholism. A SNP in GABRR2 was among those with the smallest p value in this GWAS (6 × 10−5); that SNP was not itself significant in the earlier family study, although other SNPs in the gene were (Xuei et al., 2010). Although GABRA2 has been associated with alcohol dependence (Edenberg et al., 2004) in many samples (Bauer et al., 2007; Covault et al., 2004; Drgon et al., 2006; Enoch et al., 2006, 2008; Fehr et al., 2006; Lappalainen et al., 2005; Soyka et al., 2008), there was no evidence in this case–control GWAS, although 5 SNPs in GABRG1 were nominally associated with alcoholism and 11 with early onset (cf Covault et al., 2008). Six SNPs in GABRG3 (Dick et al., 2004) were associated with alcohol dependence in the EA sample, and 17 SNPs in the much smaller AA sample. In GABRA1 (Dick et al., 2006), we found 3 SNPs associated with alcohol dependence and 4 with early onset. Many SNPs in and near GABRG2 were also associated with dependence (and early onset). Thus, overall, there continues to be evidence that variations in GABAA receptors affect alcohol dependence.

Several SNPs nominated as candidates in earlier GWAS studies replicated in ours. Johnson and colleagues (2006) reported 51 regions, containing 181 SNPs, that provided the strongest evidence for association in a GWAS of alcohol dependence using pooled samples of 120 cases and 160 controls drawn from the COGA study (we do not know the overlap with the present study). Among the 68 of those SNPs for which we had data, 4 provided evidence of replication (p < 0.02; Table 3). CPE encodes carboxypeptidase E, present in the central nervous system (Lynch et al., 1990), which catalyzes an important step in the processing of peptide hormones and neurotransmitters (Hook et al., 2008). A pair of closely linked SNPs in DNASE2B, encoding deoxyribonuclease II beta, provided evidence for replication, and other SNPs in that region provided further support. SLC10A2, which encodes a sodium/bile acid cotransporter, also replicated; expression of SLC10A2 is regulated in part by retinol (Neimark et al., 2004). Three other SNPs replicated when the subgroup with early-onset alcoholism was analyzed: rs35164 just downstream of CDH11 (a type II classical cadherin), rs1927384, which lies between FGF14 (fibroblast growth factor 14) and TPP2 (tripeptidyl peptidase II), and rs6729553 in DNAH6 (axonemal dynein heavy chain 6, a microtubule-associated motor protein important in retrograde axonal organelles (Schnapp and Reese, 1989)).

Table 3.   Replication of SNPs Detected in a Pooling Study
SNPChrPositionGENEAlcohol dependence (p value)Alcohol dependence odds ratioEarly onset alcohol dependence (p value)Early onset alcohol dependence odds ratio 
  1. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from Johnson and colleagues (2006) that provided evidence for association (p ≤ 0.05) in the present GWAS. Alcohol dependence is the p value for association in the GWAS European American sample. Early onset alcohol dependence is the p value for the GWAS with affected status defined as having an onset of alcohol dependence at or below the median (22 years). Bold, p ≤ 0.05.

rs1506700184,649,319DNASE2B0.0070.800.0010.73DLAD DNase II-like acid DNase
rs3121147184,649,571DNASE2B0.0090.800.0010.73DLAD DNase II-like acid DNase
rs6729553284,763,346DNAH60.3020.900.0500.79Dynein, axonemal, heavy chain 6
rs13706874166,609,805CPE0.0011.360.0271.27CPE carboxypeptidase E
rs192738413101,943,751FGF140.1880.860.0370.75Between FGF14 and TPP2
rs27992913102,538,720SLC10A20.0161.260.0151.31Flank SLC10A2 solute carrier family 10 (sodium/bile acid cotransporter family), member 2
rs351641663,532,702CDH110.3140.910.0220.78Flank CDH11 cadherin 11, type 2

Treutlein and colleagues (2009) recently reported results from a GWAS of German alcoholics. Their cases were male alcoholics who had been hospitalized for treatment or prevention of severe withdrawal. We had data for 114 of their top 140 SNPs (121 at p < 10−4 in their study and 19 they nominated from rodent studies); 14 were significant in our primary analysis of alcohol dependence; 11 of these were also significant in our smaller subset of early-onset alcoholics (Table 4). Only one of these, rs13273672 in GATA4, was among the 15 SNPs for which Treutlein et al. reported confirmation in their follow-up (Treutlein et al., 2009). Among the SNPs for which we had replication, 6 have the same risk allele; these lie in or near ARL6IP5, ID4, GATA4, SYNE1, ADCY3, and PRKCA; 3 of these (GATA4, ADCY3, SYNE1) were among the top 6 with our early-onset phenotype. These are all good candidate genes; 2 regulate transcription (ID4, GATA4), 2 (ADCY3, PRKCA) regulate important second messenger systems, one (ARL6IP5) inhibits the glutamate transporter EAAC1, and one (SYNE1) is associated with autosomal recessive spinocerebellar ataxia 8. PRKCA expression is lower in the nucleus accumbens of alcohol-preferring P rats after operant ethanol self-administration (Rodd et al., 2008) and is reduced by chronic alcohol in vertebrae of Sprague–Dawley rats after chronic binge exposure to ethanol (Himes et al., 2008). We have confirming evidence for 3 of these (PRKCA, ADCY3, ARL6IP5) in our African American sample.

Table 4.   Replication of SNPs Detected in a GWAS of German Alcoholics
SNPChrLocation (bp)GeneTreutlein et al.COGA results – EACOGA results – AAGene name
Risk allelep valueDependence (p value)ORRisk alleleEarly onset p valueORMAFDependence (p value)ORMAF
  1. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from Treutlein and colleagues (2009) that provided evidence for association (p ≤ 0.05) in the present GWAS. Results from Treutlein are shown for comparison with the present GWAS in EA and AA. AA, African American; EA, European American; OR, odds ratio; MAF, minor allele frequency. Bold SNPs have the same risk allele.

rs4200331111,097,197KCNA3A2.7E-059.6E-030.8G7.7E-030.70.266.6E-011.20.06Potassium voltage-gated channel, shaker-related subfamily, member 3
rs3438021111,118,652CD53T9.0E-051.8E-030.7C1.4E-030.70.247.9E-011.10.06CD53 molecule
rs17799872224,898,461ADCY3A2.1E-034.4E-021.4A1.9E-021.50.083.1E-033.10.07Adenylate cyclase 3
rs11706542328,303,587CMC1T4.3E-052.0E-020.8C4.1E-020.80.286.8E-010.90.12COX assembly mitochondrial protein homolog
rs1606388328,309,831CMC1T5.2E-051.5E-020.8G3.2E-020.80.282.0E-010.70.08COX assembly mitochondrial protein homolog
rs4680758328,576,547ZCWPW2A4.7E-052.5E-020.8C6.0E-020.80.255.1E-010.90.10 
rs6549184369,232,967ARL6IP5A7.6E-051.6E-021.7A6.4E-021.60.041.1E-042.10.25ADP-ribosylation-like factor 6 interacting protein 5
rs12527834619,929,760ID4G3.7E-052.1E-021.4G7.7E-021.40.102.7E-011.50.04Inhibitor of DNA binding 4, dominant negative helix-loop-helix protein
rs2149596152,744,514SYNE1A4.7E-052.8E-021.2A1.8E-021.30.509.3E-011.00.12Spectrin repeat containing, nuclear envelope 1
rs2188594720,645,811ABCB5A9.3E-056.9E-030.7G2.2E-020.70.184.6E-010.90.49ATP-binding cassette, subfamily B (MDR/TAP), member 5
rs6958596720,661,260ABCB5T1.4E-034.6E-030.7C1.7E-020.70.162.6E-010.80.21ATP-binding cassette, subfamily B (MDR/TAP), member 5
rs13273672*811,649,790GATA4C2.2E-032.2E-021.2C1.6E-031.40.312.9E-010.80.35GATA binding protein 4
rs75370813100,219,370TMTC4C7.9E-053.1E-020.7A2.5E-020.60.073.2E-011.30.12transmembrane and tetratricopeptide repeat containing 4
rs126030611762,242,660PRKCAA7.8E-051.2E-011.1A4.7E-021.20.483.3E-020.70.46Protein kinase C, alpha
rs80829831855,306,698CCBE1G9.0E-051.7E-020.8A2.3E-020.80.352.1E-010.80.49Collagen and calcium binding EGF domains 1
rs117026902142,280,737ZNF295G2.0E-057.8E-021.3G4.6E-021.40.088.6E-010.90.02Zinc finger protein 295

A recently submitted manuscript (Bierut et al., 2010) describes results from the Study of Addiction: Genetics and Environment Consortium, which has performed a GWAS using the phenotype of alcohol dependence in a sample of cases and controls ascertained through 3 different studies (dbGaP accession phs000092.v1.p1). One of the 3 studies was COGA, with 612 EA alcohol-dependent individuals and 413 EA controls included in both our analysis and the SAGE analyses. Two other studies also provided EA cases: one recruited cases with nicotine dependence through a population screening design (n = 343 alcohol-dependent EA cases) and the other recruited cases with cocaine dependence through treatment centers (n = 278 alcohol-dependent EA cases). While 52% of EA COGA subjects also reported another substance dependence, the inclusion of cases in the SAGE analysis recruited for different primary diagnoses will likely introduce a number of novel genes contributing to alcohol dependence and another comorbid condition, either nicotine dependence or cocaine dependence. For this reason, while we might hope for some commonality between the results from the COGA and SAGE studies because of the overlapping samples, it is not surprising that in practice results of GWAS from each study are quite different.

Overall, although we did not detect any SNP that met genome-wide significance, we have assembled several different lines of evidence to prioritize SNPs and genes from among the results for further study. In a multi-stage follow-up to the GWAS, we: a) analyzed a set of top SNPs by analyzing transmission in a family sample, which provided additional support for some of the SNPs; b) determined which among the top SNPs were expressed in human brain; and c) determined which top SNPs are affected by exposure to alcohol in human LCLs. The convergence of evidence from the GWAS, family-based association analyses and the response of genes to ethanol exposure provides a set of interesting candidate genes for further analyses in larger samples.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information

We thank Kim Doheny and Elizabeth Pugh from CIDR and Justin Paschall from the NCBI dbGaP staff for valuable assistance with genotyping and quality control in developing the dataset available at dbGaP.

The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA), Principal Investigators B. Porjesz, V. Hesselbrock, H. Edenberg, L. Bierut, includes ten different centers: University of Connecticut (V. Hesselbrock); Indiana University (H.J. Edenberg, J. Nurnberger Jr., T. Foroud); University of Iowa (S. Kuperman, J. Kramer); SUNY Downstate (B. Porjesz); Washington University in St Louis (L. Bierut, A. Goate, J. Rice, K. Bucholz); University of California at San Diego (M. Schuckit); Howard University (R. Taylor); Rutgers University (J. Tischfield); Southwest Foundation (L. Almasy), and Virginia Commonwealth University (D. Dick). A. Parsian and M. Reilly are the NIAAA Staff Collaborators. We continue to be inspired by our memories of Henri Begleiter and Theodore Reich, founding PI and Co-PI of COGA, and also owe a debt of gratitude to other past organizers of COGA, including Ting-Kai Li (currently a consultant with COGA), P. Michael Conneally, and Raymond Crowe, for their critical contributions. This national collaborative study is supported by NIH Grant U10AA008401 from NIAAA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Funding support for GWAS genotyping, which was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research, was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the NIH GEI (U01HG004438), and the NIH contract “High throughput genotyping for studying the genetic contributions to human disease” (HHSN268200782096C). Family-based genotyping was performed using the facilities of the Center for Medical Genomics at Indiana University School of Medicine, which is supported in part by the Indiana Genomics Initiative of Indiana University (INGEN®); INGEN is supported in part by The Lilly Endowment, Inc.

Brain tissues were received from the New South Wales Tissue Resource Centre, which is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The University of Sydney, Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Neuroscience Institute of Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Grant R01 AA12725) and NSW Department of Health.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information
  • Abecasis GR, Cardon LR, Cookson WO (2000) A general test of association for quantitative traits in nuclear families. Am J Hum Genet 66:279292.
  • Agrawal A, Edenberg HJ, Foroud T, Bierut LJ, Dunne G, Hinrichs AL, Nurnberger JI, Crowe R, Kuperman S, Schuckit MA, Begleiter H, Porjesz B, Dick DM (2006) Association of GABRA2 with drug dependence in the collaborative study of the genetics of alcoholism sample. Behav Genet 36:640650.
  • American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd ed. Revised. American Psychiatric Association Press, Washington, DC.
  • American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association Press, Washington, DC.
  • Bauer LO, Covault J, Harel O, Das S, Gelernter J, Anton R, Kranzler HR (2007) Variation in GABRA2 predicts drinking behavior in project MATCH subjects. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31:17801787.
  • Begleiter H, Reich T, Hesselbrock V, Porjesz B, Li T-K, Schuckit MA, Edenberg HJ, Rice AP (1995) The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. Alcohol Health Res World 19:228236.
  • Bierut LJ, Agrawal A, Bucholz KK, Doheny KF, Laurie C, Pugh E, Fisher S, Fox L, Howells W, Bertelsen S, Hinrichs AL, Almasy L, Breslau N, Culverhouse RC, Dick DM, Edenberg HJ, Foroud T, Grucza RA, Hatsukami D, Hesselbrock V, Johnson EO, Kramer J, Krueger RF, Kuperman S, Lynskey M, Mann K, Neuman RK, Nöthen MM, Nurnberger JI Jr, Porjesz B, Ridinger M, Saccone NL, Schuckit MA, Tischfield JA, Wang JC, Rietschel M, Goate AM, Rice JP, as part of the GENEVA Consortium (2010) A genome wide association study of alcohol dependence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (in press).
  • Bucholz KK, Cadoret R, Cloninger CR, Dinwiddie SH, Hesselbrock VM, Nurnberger JIJ, Reich T, Schmidt I, Schuckit MA (1994) A new semi-structured psychiatric interview for use in genetic linkage studies: a report of the reliability of the SSAGA. J Stud Alcohol 55:149158.
  • Buck KJ, Rademacher BS, Metten P, Crabbe JC (2002) Mapping murine loci for physical dependence on ethanol. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 160:398407.
  • Chang RC, Yu MS, Lai CS (2006) Significance of molecular signaling for protein translation control in neurodegenerative diseases. Neurosignals 15:249258.
  • Chen AC, Tang Y, Rangaswamy M, Wang JC, Almasy L, Foroud T, Edenberg HJ, Hesselbrock V, Nurnberger J Jr, Kuperman S, O’Connor SJ, Schuckit MA, Bauer LO, Tischfield J, Rice JP, Bierut L, Goate A, Porjesz B (2009) Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms in a glutamate receptor gene (GRM8) with theta power of event-related oscillations and alcohol dependence. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 150B:359368.
  • Covault J, Gelernter J, Hesselbrock V, Nellissery M, Kranzler HR (2004) Allelic and haplotypic association of GABRA2 with alcohol dependence. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 129:104109.
  • Covault J, Gelernter J, Jensen K, Anton R, Kranzler HR (2008) Markers in the 5′-region of GABRG1 associate to alcohol dependence and are in linkage disequilibrium with markers in the adjacent GABRA2 gene. Neuropsychopharmacology 33:837848.
  • Crabbe JC (1996) Quantitative trait locus gene mapping: a new method for locating alcohol response genes. Addict Biol 1:229235.
  • Dick DM, Agrawal A, Wang JC, Hinrichs A, Bertelsen S, Bucholz KK, Schuckit M, Kramer J, Nurnberger J Jr, Tischfield J, Edenberg HJ, Goate A, Bierut LJ (2007a) Alcohol dependence with comorbid drug dependence: genetic and phenotypic associations suggest a more severe form of the disorder with stronger genetic contribution to risk. Addiction 102:11311139.
  • Dick DM, Edenberg HJ, Xuei X, Goate A, Kuperman S, Schuckit M, Crowe R, Smith TL, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Foroud T (2004) Association of GABRG3 with alcohol dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 28:49.
  • Dick DM, Plunkett J, Wetherill LF, Xuei X, Goate A, Hesselbrock V, Schuckit M, Crowe R, Edenberg HJ, Foroud T (2006) Association between GABRA1 and drinking behaviors in the collaborative study on the genetics of alcoholism sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 30:11011110.
  • Dick DM, Wang JC, Plunkett J, Aliev F, Hinrichs A, Bertelsen S, Budde JP, Goldstein EL, Kaplan D, Edenberg HJ, Nurnberger J Jr, Hesselbrock V, Schuckit M, Kuperman S, Tischfield J, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Bierut LJ, Goate A (2007b) Family-Based Association Analyses of Alcohol Dependence Phenotypes Across DRD2 and Neighboring Gene ANKK1. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31:16451653.
  • Downing C, Rodd-Henricks KK, Flaherty L, Dudek BC (2003) Genetic analysis of the psychomotor stimulant effect of ethanol. Genes Brain Behav 2:140151.
  • Drgon T, D’Addario C, Uhl GR (2006) Linkage disequilibrium, haplotype and association studies of a chromosome 4 GABA receptor gene cluster: candidate gene variants for addictions. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 141:854860.
  • Dudbridge F (2003) Pedigree disequilibrium tests for multilocus haplotypes. Genet Epidemiol 25:115121.
  • Edenberg HJ (2002) The collaborative study on the genetics of alcoholism: an update. Alcohol Res Health 26:214218.
  • Edenberg HJ, Dick DM, Xuei X, Tian H, Almasy L, Bauer LO, Crowe RR, Goate A, Hesselbrock V, Jones K, Kwon J, Li TK, Nurnberger JI Jr, O’Connor SJ, Reich T, Rice J, Schuckit MA, Porjesz B, Foroud T, Begleiter H (2004) Variations in GABRA2, encoding the alpha 2 subunit of the GABA(A) receptor, are associated with alcohol dependence and with brain oscillations. Am J Hum Genet 74:705714.
  • Edenberg HJ, Foroud T (2006) The genetics of alcoholism: identifying specific genes through family studies. Addict Biol 11:386396.
  • Edenberg HJ, Wang J, Tian H, Pochareddy S, Xuei X, Wetherill L, Goate A, Hinrichs T, Kuperman S, Nurnberger JI Jr, Schuckit M, Tischfield JA, Foroud T (2008a) A regulatory variation in OPRK1, the gene encoding the kappa-opioid receptor, is associated with alcohol dependence. Hum Mol Genet 17:17831789.
  • Edenberg HJ, Xuei X, Chen HJ, Tian H, Wetherill LF, Dick DM, Almasy L, Bierut L, Bucholz KK, Goate A, Hesselbrock V, Kuperman S, Nurnberger J, Porjesz B, Rice J, Schuckit M, Tischfield J, Begleiter H, Foroud T (2006) Association of alcohol dehydrogenase genes with alcohol dependence: a comprehensive analysis. Hum Mol Genet 15:15391549.
  • Edenberg HJ, Xuei X, Wetherill LF, Bierut L, Bucholz K, Dick DM, Hesselbrock V, Kuperman S, Porjesz B, Schuckit MA, Tischfield JA, Almasy LA, Nurnberger JI Jr, Foroud T (2008b) Association of NFKB1, which encodes a subunit of the transcription factor NF-kappaB, with alcohol dependence. Hum Mol Genet 17:963970.
  • Enoch MA, Hodgkinson CA, Yuan Q, Albaugh B, Virkkunen M, Goldman D (2009) GABRG1 and GABRA2 as independent predictors for alcoholism in two populations. Neuropsychopharmacology 34:12451254.
  • Enoch MA, Schwartz L, Albaugh B, Virkkunen M, Goldman D (2006) Dimensional anxiety mediates linkage of GABRA2 haplotypes with alcoholism. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 141:599607.
  • Fehr C, Sander T, Tadic A, Lenzen KP, Anghelescu I, Klawe C, Dahmen N, Schmidt LG, Szegedi A (2006) Confirmation of association of the GABRA2 gene with alcohol dependence by subtype-specific analysis. Psychiatr Genet 16:917.
  • Feighner JP, Robins E, Guze SB, Woodruff RA, Winokur G, Munoz R (1972) Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 26:5763.
  • Foroud T, Edenberg HJ, Goate A, Rice J, Flury L, Koller DL, Bierut LJ, Conneally PM, Nurnberger JI, Bucholz KK, Li TK, Hesselbrock V, Crowe R, Schuckit M, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Reich T (2000) Alcoholism susceptibility loci: confirmation studies in a replicate sample and further mapping. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24:933945.
  • Foroud T, Wetherill LF, Kramer J, Tischfield JA, Nurnberger JI Jr, Schuckit MA, Xuei X, Edenberg HJ (2008) The tachykinin receptor 3 is associated with alcohol and cocaine dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32:10231030.
  • Guindalini C, Scivoletto S, Ferreira RG, Breen G, Zilberman M, Peluso MA, Zatz M (2005) Association of genetic variants in alcohol dehydrogenase 4 with alcohol dependence in Brazilian patients. Am J Psychiatry 162:10051007.
  • Gunderson KL, Steemers FJ, Ren H, Ng P, Zhou L, Tsan C, Chang W, Bullis D, Musmacker J, King C, Lebruska LL, Barker D, Oliphant A, Kuhn KM, Shen R (2006) Whole-genome genotyping. Methods Enzymol 410:359376.
  • Hasin DS, Stinson FS, Ogburn E, Grant BF (2007) Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64:830842.
  • Hesselbrock M, Easton C, Bucholz KK, Schuckit M, Hesselbrock V (1999) A validity study of the SSAGA--a comparison with the SCAN. Addiction 94:13611370.
  • Himes R, Wezeman FH, Callaci JJ (2008) Identification of novel bone-specific molecular targets of binge alcohol and ibandronate by transcriptome analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32:11671180.
  • Hook V, Funkelstein L, Lu D, Bark S, Wegrzyn J, Hwang SR (2008) Proteases for processing proneuropeptides into peptide neurotransmitters and hormones. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 48:393423.
  • Johnson C, Drgon T, Liu QR, Walther D, Edenberg H, Rice J, Foroud T, Uhl GR (2006) Pooled association genome scanning for alcohol dependence using 104,268 SNPs: validation and use to identify alcoholism vulnerability loci in unrelated individuals from the collaborative study on the genetics of alcoholism. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 141B:844853.
  • Johnson AD, Handsaker RE, Pulit SL, Nizzari MM, O’Donnell CJ, De Bakker PI (2008) SNAP: a web-based tool for identification and annotation of proxy SNPs using HapMap. Bioinformatics 24:29382939.
  • Kendler KS, Neale MC, Heath AC, Kessler RC, Eaves LJ (1994) A twin-family study of alcoholism in women. Am J Psychiatry 151:707715.
  • Kuo PH, Kalsi G, Prescott CA, Hodgkinson CA, Goldman D, Van Den Oord EJ, Alexander J, Jiang C, Sullivan PF, Patterson DG, Walsh D, Kendler KS, Riley BP (2008) Association of ADH and ALDH genes with alcohol dependence in the Irish Affected Sib Pair Study of alcohol dependence (IASPSAD) sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32:785795.
  • Lappalainen J, Krupitsky E, Remizov M, Pchelina S, Taraskina A, Zvartau E, Somberg LK, Covault J, Kranzler HR, Krystal JH, Gelernter J (2005) Association between alcoholism and gamma-amino butyric acid alpha2 receptor subtype in a Russian population. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 29:493498.
  • Li TK, Hewitt BG, Grant BF (2007) The Alcohol Dependence Syndrome, 30 years later: a commentary. The 2006 H. David Archibald lecture. Addiction 102:15221530.
  • Lind PA, Macgregor S, Montgomery GW, Heath AC, Martin NG, Whitfield JB (2008) Effects of GABRA2 variation on physiological, psychomotor and subjective Responses in the alcohol challenge twin study. Twin Res Hum Genet 11:174182.
  • Luo X, Kranzler HR, Zuo L, Lappalainen J, Yang BZ, Gelernter J (2006) ADH4 gene variation is associated with alcohol dependence and drug dependence in European Americans: results from HWD tests and case–control association studies. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:10851095.
  • Luo X, Kranzler HR, Zuo L, Wang S, Blumberg HP, Gelernter J (2005a) CHRM2 gene predisposes to alcohol dependence, drug dependence and affective disorders: results from an extended case–control structured association study. Hum Mol Genet 14:24212434.
  • Luo X, Kranzler HR, Zuo L, Yang BZ, Lappalainen J, Gelernter J (2005b) ADH4 gene variation is associated with alcohol and drug dependence: results from family controlled and population-structured association studies. Pharmacogenet Genomics 15:755768.
  • Lynch DR, Braas KM, Hutton JC, Snyder SH (1990) Carboxypeptidase E (CPE): immunocytochemical localization in the rat central nervous system and pituitary gland. J Neurosci 10:15921599.
  • Malgaroli A, Vallar L, Zimarino V (2006) Protein homeostasis in neurons and its pathological alterations. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16:270274.
  • Martin ER, Monks SA, Warren LL, Kaplan NL (2000) A test for linkage and association in general pedigrees: the pedigree disequilibrium test. Am J Hum Genet 67:146154.
  • McGue M (1999) Phenotyping alcoholism. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 23:757758.
  • Mozhui K, Ciobanu DC, Schikorski T, Wang X, Lu L, Williams RW (2008) Dissection of a QTL hotspot on mouse distal chromosome 1 that modulates neurobehavioral phenotypes and gene expression. PLoS Genet 4:e1000260.
  • Neimark E, Chen F, Li X, Shneider BL (2004) Bile acid-induced negative feedback regulation of the human ileal bile acid transporter. Hepatology 40:149156.
  • Nurnberger JI Jr, Wiegand R, Bucholz K, O’Connor S, Meyer ET, Reich T, Rice J, Schuckit M, King L, Petti T, Bierut L, Hinrichs AL, Kuperman S, Hesselbrock V, Porjesz B (2004) A family study of alcohol dependence: coaggregation of multiple disorders in relatives of alcohol-dependent probands. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:12461256.
  • O’Connell JR, Weeks DE (1998) PedCheck: a program for identification of genotype incompatibilities in linkage analysis. Am J Hum Genet 63:259266.
  • Pickens RW, Svikis DS, McGue M, Lykken DT, Heston LL, Clayton PJ (1991) Heterogeneity in the inheritance of alcoholism: a study of male and female twins. Arch Gen Psychiatry 48:1928.
  • Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, De Bakker PI, Daly MJ, Sham PC (2007) PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81:559575.
  • Reich T, Edenberg HJ, Goate A, Williams JT, Rice JP, Van Eerdewegh P, Foroud T, Hesselbrock V, Schuckit MA, Bucholz K, Porjesz B, Li TK, Conneally PM, Nurnberger JI Jr, Tischfield JA, Crowe RR, Cloninger CR, Wu W, Shears S, Carr K, Crose C, Willig C, Begleiter H (1998) Genome-wide search for genes affecting the risk for alcohol dependence. Am J Med Genet 81:207215.
  • Rodd ZA, Kimpel MW, Edenberg HJ, Bell RL, Strother WN, McClintick JN, Carr LG, Liang T, McBride WJ (2008) Differential gene expression in the nucleus accumbens with ethanol self-administration in inbred alcohol-preferring rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 89:481498.
  • Schnapp BJ, Reese TS (1989) Dynein is the motor for retrograde axonal transport of organelles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:15481552.
  • Soyka M, Preuss UW, Hesselbrock V, Zill P, Koller G, Bondy B (2008) GABA-A2 receptor subunit gene (GABRA2) polymorphisms and risk for alcohol dependence. J Psychiatr Res 42:184191.
  • Storey JD, Tibshirani R (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:94409445.
  • Treutlein J, Cichon S, Ridinger M, Wodarz N, Soyka M, Zill P, Maier W, Moessner R, Gaebel W, Dahmen N, Fehr C, Scherbaum N, Steffens M, Ludwig KU, Frank J, Wichmann HE, Schreiber S, Dragano N, Sommer WH, Leonardi-Essmann F, Lourdusamy A, Gebicke-Haerter P, Wienker TF, Sullivan PF, Nothen MM, Kiefer F, Spanagel R, Mann K, Rietschel M (2009) Genome-wide association study of alcohol dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 66:773784.
  • Vogel CI, Scherag A, Bronner G, Nguyen TT, Wang HJ, Grallert H, Bornhorst A, Rosskopf D, Volzke H, Reinehr T, Rief W, Illig T, Wichmann HE, Schafer H, Hebebrand J, Hinney A (2009) Gastric inhibitory polypeptide receptor: association analyses for obesity of several polymorphisms in large study groups. BMC Med Genet 10:19.
  • Wang JC, Grucza R, Cruchaga C, Hinrichs AL, Bertelsen S, Budde JP, Fox L, Goldstein E, Reyes O, Saccone N, Saccone S, Xuei X, Bucholz K, Kuperman S, Nurnberger J Jr, Rice JP, Schuckit M, Tischfield J, Hesselbrock V, Porjesz B, Edenberg HJ, Bierut LJ, Goate AM (2009) Genetic variation in the CHRNA5 gene affects mRNA levels and is associated with risk for alcohol dependence. Mol Psychiatry 14:501510.
  • Wang JC, Hinrichs AL, Stock H, Budde J, Allen R, Bertelsen S, Kwon JM, Wu W, Dick DM, Rice J, Jones K, Nurnberger JI Jr, Tischfield J, Porjesz B, Edenberg HJ, Hesselbrock V, Crowe R, Schuckit M, Begleiter H, Reich T, Goate AM, Bierut LJ (2004) Evidence of common and specific genetic effects: association of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M2 (CHRM2) gene with alcohol dependence and major depressive syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 13:19031911.
  • Wetherill L, Schuckit MA, Hesselbrock V, Xuei X, Liang T, Dick DM, Kramer J, Nurnberger JI Jr, Tischfield JA, Porjesz B, Edenberg HJ, Foroud T (2008) Neuropeptide Y receptor genes are associated with alcohol dependence, alcohol withdrawal phenotypes, and cocaine dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32:20312040.
  • World Health Organization (1993) International Classification of Disease, 10th ed. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  • Xuei X, Dick D, Flury-Wetherill L, Tian HJ, Agrawal A, Bierut L, Goate A, Bucholz K, Schuckit M, Nurnberger J Jr, Tischfield J, Kuperman S, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Foroud T, Edenberg HJ (2006) Association of the kappa-opioid system with alcohol dependence. Mol Psychiatry 11:10161024.
  • Xuei X, Flury-Wetherill L, Dick D, Goate A, Tischfield J, Nurnberger J Jr, Schuckit M, Kramer J, Kuperman S, Hesselbrock V, Porjesz B, Foroud T, Edenberg HJ (2010) GABRR1 and GABRR2, encoding the GABA-A receptor subunits ρ1 and ρ2, are associated with alcohol dependence. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 19536785.
  • Yang BZ, Kranzler HR, Zhao H, Gruen JR, Luo X, Gelernter J (2007) Association of haplotypic variants in DRD2, ANKK1, TTC12 and NCAM1 to alcohol dependence in independent case control and family samples. Hum Mol Genet 16:28442853.
  • Zuo L, Kranzler HR, Luo X, Yang BZ, Weiss R, Brady K, Poling J, Farrer L, Gelernter J (2009) Interaction between two independent CNR1 variants increases risk for cocaine dependence in European Americans: a replication study in family-based sample and population-based sample. Neuropsychopharmacology 34:15041513.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. References
  8. Supporting Information

Table S1. SNPs Associated With Alcohol Dependence in European Americans (p ≤ 10−3).

Table S2. SNPs Associated With Alcohol Dependence in African Americans (p ≤ 10−3).

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
ACER_1156_sm_table1.xls297KSupporting info item
ACER_1156_sm_table2.xls144KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.