Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults

CHEN Yan Mei XU Ping WANG Zhou Tian ZHU Yu Mei GONG Chun Mei HUANG Chang Hua LIU Xiao Li ZHOU Ji Chang

CHEN Yan Mei, XU Ping, WANG Zhou Tian, ZHU Yu Mei, GONG Chun Mei, HUANG Chang Hua, LIU Xiao Li, ZHOU Ji Chang. Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(2): 115-125. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.016
Citation: CHEN Yan Mei, XU Ping, WANG Zhou Tian, ZHU Yu Mei, GONG Chun Mei, HUANG Chang Hua, LIU Xiao Li, ZHOU Ji Chang. Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(2): 115-125. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.016

doi: 10.3967/bes2022.016

Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults

Funds: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 81973038] and Science, Technology and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality, China [grant number JCYJ20200109142446804]
More Information
    Author Bio:

    CHEN Yan Mei, born in 1996, female, Master’s Degree, majoring in public health nutrition

    XU Ping, born in 1995, female, Master’s Degree, majoring in public health nutrition

    Corresponding author: ZHOU Ji Chang, Associate Professor, PhD, Tel: 86-20-83226383, E-mail: zhoujch8@mail.sysu.edu.cn
  • &These authors contributed equally to this work.
    • 关键词:
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  
    &These authors contributed equally to this work.
    注释:
  • S1.  Melting curve analyses on the polymorphisms of vitamin D receptor gene (VDR). Panel A: Melting curve of VDR Cdx2 (rs11568820, A). Panel B: Melting curve of Fok1 (rs2228570, B). Panel C: Melting curve of VDR Apa1 (rs7975232, C). Panel D: Melting curve of VDR Taq1 (rs731236, D).

    S1.   The information of molecular beacon probes and primers for genotyping the four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of vitamin D receptor gene (VDR)

    NCBI rs IDSNP nameAllelesaPositionbOligo nameOligo sequence, 5’–3’ directioncLength of
    amplicon, bp
    rs11568820Cdx2C > Tpromoter region,ProbecctgaTTACTGTGACCTAGTTTACTCAGG179
    chr12:47908762Forward primerCAATGAAAGCAAACCAAGGGGTCTTC
    Backward primerAGGAAGGAAAAGAGGATAGAGAAAAT
    rs2228570Fok1A > Bdexon 2, chr12:47879112ProbeccgcGGGATGGAGGCAATGGCGG178
    Forward primerCACTGACTCTGGCTCTGACCGT
    Backward primerGCAGCCTTCACAGGTCATA
    rs7975232Apa1C > Aintron 8, chr12:47845054ProbeectTGGGCCCCTCACTGCTCAAg185
    rs731236Taq1 A > Gexon 9, chr12:47844974ProbeecgcGGATGGCCTCAATCAGCGCG
    Forward primerGGCGGCAGCGGATGTACG
    Backward primerGCCGTTGAGTGTCTGTGT
      Note. aThe usages of these alleles are consistent to those used in the NCBI dbSNP database. bLocation of the allelic bases on the VDR and chromosome 12. cIn the probe sequence, the lowercase letters at the 5’ or 3’ end are adaptor bases, and the highlighted letters are one of the alleles in the SNP locus. dB, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T, i.e. not A. eApa1 and Taq1 were detected with their respective probe on the same qPCR amplicon.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  1.   Clinical profiles of study subjects (medians and interquartile ranges)

    VariablesFemaleMale
    DL (n = 236)ND (n = 888)P-valueDL (n = 299)ND (n = 564)P-value
    Age, y50 (38.3–57)36 (30–46)< 0.00139 (33–47)33 (29–42)< 0.001
    BMI, kg/m223.1 (21.1–24.9)21.6 (20.0–23.2)< 0.00125.3 (24.0–27.0)23.9 (22.0–25.6)< 0.001
    25OHD, nmol/L59.3 (49.6–71.3)58.4 (49.2–68.3)0.24560.8 (50.8–71.1)63.4 (54.3–73.6)0.005
    Sun exposure time, min/w23.0 (10.0–39.0)20.0 (10.0–39.0)0.68024.0 (10.0–41.0)24.0 (13.0–50.0)0.135
    FPG, mmol/L5.6 (5.3–6.0)5.3 (5.0–5.6)< 0.0015.5 (5.2–5.9)5.3 (5.0–5.6)< 0.001
    HbA1c, %5.8 (5.5–6.1)5.5 (5.4–5.7)< 0.0015.7 (5.5–6.0)5.6 (5.4–5.8)< 0.001
    SBP, mmHg118 (108–133.8)111.5 (104–121)< 0.001126 (118–136)121.5 (112–131)< 0.001
    DBP, mmHg71 (64–79)67 (61–73)< 0.00177 (71–85)73 (67–80)< 0.001
    TG, mmol/L1.7 (1.0–2.8)0.8 (0.6–1.1)< 0.0012.7 (2.1–3.6)1.2 (0.9–1.6)< 0.001
    TC, mmol/L6.4 (5.4–6.9)4.9 (4.4–5.4)< 0.0015.7 (4.7–6.4)5.0 (4.4–5.5)< 0.001
    LDLC, mmol/L3.7 (3.0–3.9)2.7 (2.4–3.1)< 0.0013.2 (2.7–3.7)2.8 (2.5–3.1)< 0.001
    HDLC, mmol/L1.6 (1.4–1.8)1.4 (1.3–1.6)< 0.0011.5 (1.3–1.6)1.3 (1.2–1.5)< 0.001
      Note. BMI: body mass index; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; DL: dyslipidemia; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; ND: non-dyslipidemia; SBP: systolic blood pressure; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S6.   Genetic model comparison of Taq1 (rs731236) in vitamin D receptor gene between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

    GeneAdditive modelDominant modelRecessive modelHomozygous modelAllelic model
    modelsGGAGAAGG + AGAAGGAG + AAGGAAGA
    DL
     n2454884748825332488491,021
     %0.48.491.28.891.20.499.60.499.64.695.4
    ND
     n 7 141 1,304 148 1,304 7 1,445 7 1,304 155 2,749
     % 0.5 9.6 89.9 10.2 89.8 0.5 99.5 0.5 99.5 5.3 94.7
    Total
     n 9 186 1,792 195 1,792 9 1,978 9 1,792 204 3,770
     % 0.5 9.4 90.2 9.8 90.2 0.5 99.5 0.5 99.5 5.1 94.9
     χ2 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.11 0.92
     P value 0.64 0.35 1.00 0.74 0.34
    下载: 导出CSV

    S2.   Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium tests on the vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, Cdx2 (rs11568820), Fok1 (rs2228570), Apa1 (rs7975232), and Taq1 (rs731236)

     GenotypenGenotype frequency, %χ2P value*
    Cdx2TTCTCC
     DL1,14220.047.034.02.060.15
     ND84519.051.030.00.800.37
     total1,98719.049.032.00.260.61
    Fok1BBABAA
     DL1,14228.052.020.02.380.12
     ND84528.050.022.00.060.81
     total1,98728.051.021.01.750.19
    Apa1AAACCC
     DL1,14210.039.051.04.850.03
     ND8459.042.049.00.090.76
     total1,9879.040.050.02.140.14
    Taq1GGAGAA
     DL1,1420.58.090.02.730.10
     ND8450.511.091.00.600.44
     total1,9871.09.090.03.010.08
      Note. Abbreviations: B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; DL, dyslipidemia; ND, non-dyslipidemia. *Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium analyses test for the genotypes of the four SNPs.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S3.   Comparisons of the genotypic and allelic frequencies of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, Cdx2 (rs11568820), Fok1 (rs2228570), Apa1 (rs7975232), and Taq1 (rs731236) between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

    GenotypeFemaleMale
    DL, %
    n = 236
    ND, %
    n = 888
    χ2P valueDL, %
    n = 299
    ND, %
    n = 564
    χ2P value
    Cdx2
     TT17.819.40.9550.62020.419.10.3900.823
     CT50.051.643.845.9
     CC32.229.135.834.9
     T42.845.20.8410.35942.342.10.0060.937
     C57.254.857.757.9
    Fok1
     AA15.323.311.6580.00316.721.63.8710.144
     AB48.750.253.252.8
     BB36.026.530.125.5
     A39.648.411.6180.00143.348.03.5280.060
     B60.451.656.752.0
    Apa1
     AA9.39.90.1200.9428.79.00.3040.859
     AC41.140.141.539.5
     CC49.650.049.851.4
     A29.930.00.0010.97229.428.80.0730.787
     C70.170.070.671.2
    Taq1
     AA91.588.91.4960.47691.091.30.2560.921
     AG8.110.78.78.2
     GG0.40.50.30.5
     A95.694.21.3050.25395.395.40.0050.946
     G4.45.84.74.6
      Note. Abbreviations: B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S4.   Genetic model comparison of Cdx2 (rs11568820) in vitamin D receptor gene between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

    GeneAdditive modelDominant modelRecessive modelHomozygous modelAllelic model
    modelsTTCTCCTT + CTCCTTCT + CCTTCCTC
    DL
     n103249183352183103432103183455615
     %19.346.534.265.834.219.380.736.064.042.557.5
    ND
     n2807174559974552801,1722804551,2771,627
     %19.349.431.368.731.319.380.738.161.944.056.0
    Total
     n3839666381,3496383831,6043836381,7322,242
     %19.348.632.167.932.119.380.737.562.543.656.4
     χ21.541.480.000.380.67
     P value0.460.220.990.540.41
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  2.   Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult females with adjustment for age and body mass index

    Gene modelsTG ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/LTC ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/LLDLC ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
    POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
    Apa1 (rs7975232)
     Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.451.11
    (0.84–1.48)
    0.470.93
    (0.75–1.14)
    0.391.11
    (0.87–1.42)
    0.931.03
    (0.52–2.02)
     Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.591.11
    (0.77–1.59)
    0.340.88
    (0.67–1.15)
    0.591.09
    (0.79–1.50)
    0.841.10
    (0.45–2.69)
     Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.761.10
    (0.61–1.98)
    0.860.96
    (0.62–1.48)
    0.351.27
    (0.77–2.09)
    0.950.96
    (0.22–4.22)
     Hom.: AA vs. CC0.200.25
    (0.03–2.05)
    0.561.31
    (0.53–3.22)
    0.172.01
    (0.74–5.50)
    0.841.29
    (0.12–13.92)
     Alle.: A vs. C0.441.12
    (0.84–1.51)
    0.360.90
    (0.73–1.12)
    0.611.07
    (0.83–1.38)
    0.871.06
    (0.52–2.19)
    Cdx2 (rs11568820)
     Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.130.82
    (0.64–1.06)
    0.770.97
    (0.81–1.17)
    0.761.04
    (0.83–1.29)
    0.350.74
    (0.40–1.38)
     Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.090.72
    (0.50–1.05)
    0.300.86
    (0.65–1.14)
    0.701.07
    (0.77–1.49)
    0.740.85
    (0.34–2.14)
     Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.570.88
    (0.56–1.37)
    0.481.12
    (0.82–1.55)
    0.991.00
    (0.68–1.48)
    0.200.38
    (0.09–1.65)
     Hom.: TT vs. CC0.330.61
    (0.23–1.64)
    0.231.49
    (0.77–2.88)
    0.581.26
    (0.56–2.84)
    0.340.33
    (0.04–3.16)
     Alle.: T vs. C0.100.80
    (0.62–1.04)
    0.810.98
    (0.81–1.18)
    0.700.96
    (0.76–1.20)
    0.270.70
    (0.37–1.33)
    Fok1 (rs2228570)
     Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.541.08
    (0.84–1.39)
    0.361.09
    (0.91–1.30)
    0.031.28
    (1.03–1.59)
    0.631.16
    (0.64–2.13)
     Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.491.17
    (0.75–1.81)
    0.671.07
    (0.78–1.46)
    0.201.29
    (0.88–1.90)
    0.590.77
    (0.29–2.01)
     Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.691.08
    (0.74–1.59)
    0.281.17
    (0.88–1.54)
    0.031.44
    (1.04–2.00)
    0.191.80
    (0.75–4.30)
     Hom.: BB vs. AA0.270.60
    (0.24–1.48)
    0.761.11
    (0.58–2.11)
    0.022.89
    (1.18–7.05)
    0.951.06
    (0.16–7.25)
     Alle.: B vs. A0.301.15
    (0.89–1.49)
    0.201.13
    (0.94–1.36)
    0.041.27
    (1.01–1.59)
    0.461.27
    (0.67–2.40)
    Taq1 (rs731236)
     Add.: GG vs. AG vs. AA0.100.57
    (0.29–1.11)
    0.360.81
    (0.53–1.24)
    0.810.94
    (0.57–1.55)
    0.860.87
    (0.20–3.83)
     Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.130.59
    (0.30–1.17)
    0.380.82
    (0.53–1.28)
    0.880.96
    (0.57–1.62)
    0.940.95
    (0.20–4.48)
     Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
    0.470.43
    (0.05–4.10)
    0.931.11
    (0.12–10.47)
    1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
     Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
     Alle.: G vs. A0.110.58
    (0.30–1.14)
    0.310.80
    (0.52–1.23)
    0.720.91
    (0.55–1.51)
    0.880.89
    (0.19–4.07)
      Note. Abbreviations: Add.: additive model; Alle.: allelic model; B: degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI: confidence interval; Dom.: dominant model; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom.: homozygous model; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA: not available; OR: odds ratio; Rec.: recessive model; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; VDR: vitamin D receptor gene.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S7.   Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult females with adjustment for age, body mass index, dietary 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and the sunshine time per week

    Gene modelsTG ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/LTC ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/LLDLC ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
    POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
    Apa1 (rs7975232)
     Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.471.11
    (0.84–1.47)
    0.480.93
    (0.76–1.14)
    0.381.12
    (0.87–1.43)
    0.931.03
    (0.52–2.04)
     Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.591.10
    (0.77–1.59)
    0.350.88
    (0.67–1.15)
    0.591.09
    (0.79–1.50)
    0.871.08
    (0.44–2.64)
     Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.841.06
    (0.59–1.92)
    0.880.97
    (0.63–1.49)
    0.331.29
    (0.78–2.12)
    0.991.01
    (0.23–4.45)
     Hom.: AA vs. CC0.160.21
    (0.03–1.86)
    0.521.35
    (0.54–3.34)
    0.162.09
    (0.75–5.81)
    0.711.63
    (0.13–20.27)
     Alle.: A vs. C0.451.12
    (0.83–1.51)
    0.380.91
    (0.73–1.13)
    0.541.08
    (0.84–1.40)
    0.791.11
    (0.53–2.33)
    Cdx2 (rs11568820)
     Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.150.83
    (0.64–1.07)
    0.770.97
    (0.81–1.17)
    0.791.03
    (0.83–1.29)
    0.380.76
    (0.40–1.42)
     Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.100.73
    (0.50–1.06)
    0.300.86
    (0.65–1.14)
    0.701.07
    (0.76–1.49)
    0.790.88
    (0.35–2.23)
     Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.650.90
    (0.57–1.41)
    0.491.12
    (0.81–1.55)
    0.970.99
    (0.67–1.46)
    0.200.38
    (0.09–1.68)
     Hom.: TT vs. CC0.420.66
    (0.23–1.85)
    0.271.45
    (0.75–2.82)
    0.511.32
    (0.58–3.02)
    0.270.28
    (0.03–2.71)
     Alle.: T vs. C0.110.81
    (0.62–1.05)
    0.981.00
    (0.83–1.21)
    0.790.97
    (0.77–1.22)
    0.450.77
    (0.40–1.50)
    Fok1 (rs2228570)
     Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.571.08
    (0.84–1.39)
    0.351.09
    (0.91–1.31)
    0.031.28
    (1.03–1.59)
    0.681.13
    (0.62–2.07)
     Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.511.16
    (0.75–1.80)
    0.641.08
    (0.79–1.47)
    0.181.31
    (0.89–1.92)
    0.570.76
    (0.29–1.99)
     Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.701.08
    (0.73–1.59)
    0.291.16
    (0.88–1.54)
    0.031.45
    (1.04–2.00)
    0.221.72
    (0.72–4.14)
     Hom.: BB vs. AA0.220.55
    (0.21–1.44)
    0.681.15
    (0.60–2.20)
    0.022.86
    (1.16–7.08)
    0.981.03
    (0.14–7.63)
     Alle.: B vs. A0.301.15
    (0.88–1.49)
    0.271.11
    (0.92–1.34)
    0.051.26
    (1.00–1.58)
    0.371.36
    (0.70–2.65)
    Taq1 (rs731236)
     Add.: GG vs. AG vs. AA0.080.55
    (0.28–1.08)
    0.350.82
    (0.54–1.25)
    0.850.95
    (0.58–1.58)
    0.870.89
    (0.20–3.87)
     Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.110.57
    (0.28–1.13)
    0.410.83
    (0.53–1.29)
    0.940.98
    (0.58–1.66)
    0.980.98
    (0.21–4.64)
     Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
    0.450.42
    (0.04–3.99)
    0.961.06
    (0.11–10.06)
    1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
     Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
     Alle.: G vs. A0.120.59
    (0.30–1.15)
    0.270.79
    (0.51–1.21)
    0.750.92
    (0.56–1.53)
    0.860.87
    (0.19–4.09)
      Note. Abbreviations: Add., additive model; Alle., allelic model; B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI, confidential interval; Dom., dominant model; HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom., homozygous model; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA, not available; OR, odds ratio; Rec., recessive model; SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; VDR, vitamin D receptor gene.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S8.   Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult males with adjustment for age, body mass index, dietary 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and the sunshine time per week

    Gene modelsTG
    ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/L
    TC
    ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/L
    LDLC
    ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/L
    HDLC
    < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
    POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
    Apa1 (rs7975232)
     Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.551.08
    (0.85–1.37)
    0.950.99
    (0.79–1.24)
    0.920.99
    (0.75–1.30)
    0.111.72
    (0.88–3.35)
     Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.491.12
    (0.82–1.51)
    0.460.90
    (0.68–1.19)
    0.740.94
    (0.67–1.34)
    0.132.11
    (0.81–5.51)
     Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.771.08
    (0.64–1.83)
    0.231.35
    (0.83–2.20)
    0.821.07
    (0.58–1.97)
    0.511.54
    (0.43–5.53)
     Hom.: AA vs. CC0.741.18
    (0.45–3.11)
    0.251.72
    (0.69–4.29)
    0.561.36
    (0.49–3.82)
    0.313.00
    (0.37–24.68)
     Alle.: A vs. C0.471.10
    (0.86–1.41)
    0.661.05
    (0.84–1.33)
    0.830.97
    (0.73–1.29)
    0.351.39
    (0.70–2.77)
    Cdx2 (rs11568820)
     Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.650.96
    (0.78–1.17)
    0.090.85
    (0.71–1.03)
    0.460.92
    (0.73–1.16)
    0.121.62
    (0.89–2.95)
     Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.880.98
    (0.72–1.33)
    0.140.81
    (0.61–1.07)
    0.640.92
    (0.65–1.30)
    0.571.32
    (0.50–3.50)
     Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.570.90
    (0.62–1.30)
    0.200.80
    (0.57–1.13)
    0.400.83
    (0.54–1.28)
    0.042.68
    (1.06–6.75)
     Hom.: TT vs. CC0.062.25
    (0.97–5.23)
    0.820.92
    (0.42–1.99)
    0.741.17
    (0.47–2.95)
    0.194.84
    (0.46–51.14)
     Alle.: T vs C0.620.95
    (0.76–1.18)
    0.140.86
    (0.70–1.05)
    0.450.91
    (0.71–1.17)
    0.301.42
    (0.73–2.73)
    Fok1 (rs2228570)
     Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.500.93
    (0.75–1.15)
    0.080.84
    (0.69–1.02)
    0.771.04
    (0.81–1.33)
    0.022.26
    (1.12–4.56)
     Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.750.94
    (0.65–1.36)
    0.300.84
    (0.59–1.17)
    0.631.11
    (0.72–1.72)
    0.232.48
    (0.57–10.90)
     Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.470.89
    (0.64–1.23)
    0.080.76
    (0.56–1.03)
    0.970.99
    (0.68–1.45)
    0.032.75
    (1.12–6.74)
     Hom.: BB vs. AA0.891.06
    (0.48–2.35)
    0.801.11
    (0.52–2.35)
    0.821.11
    (0.45–2.73)
    0.820.79
    (0.10–6.34)
     Alle.: B vs. A0.500.93
    (0.75–1.15)
    0.190.87
    (0.71–1.07)
    0.531.08
    (0.84–1.39)
    0.091.85
    (0.91–3.76)
    Taq1 (rs731236)
     Add.: GG vs AG vs. AA0.671.12
    (0.67–1.86)
    0.701.10
    (0.68–1.76)
    0.300.72
    (0.38–1.35)
    0.640.69
    (0.15–3.19)
     Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.691.12
    (0.65–1.91)
    0.751.09
    (0.66–1.79)
    0.420.76
    (0.40–1.47)
    0.850.86
    (0.19–3.97)
     Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA0.831.27
    (0.15–11.06)
    0.472.36
    (0.23–24.37)
    1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
    1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
     Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
     Alle.: G vs. A0.651.13
    (0.67–1.89)
    0.681.11
    (0.68–1.79)
    0.310.72
    (0.38–1.37)
    0.710.75
    (0.17–3.37)
      Note. Abbreviations: Add., additive model; Alle., allelic model; B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI, confidential interval; Dom., dominant model; HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom., homozygous model; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA, not available; OR, odds ratio; Rec., recessive model; SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; VDR, vitamin D receptor gene.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  3.   Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult males with adjustment for age and body mass index

    Gene modelsTG ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/LTC ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/LLDLC ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
    POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
    Apa1 (rs7975232)
     Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.651.06
    (0.83–1.34)
    0.890.98
    (0.79–1.23)
    0.860.98
    (0.74–1.29)
    0.121.71
    (0.88–3.31)
     Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.541.10
    (0.81–1.49)
    0.430.89
    (0.67–1.18)
    0.710.94
    (0.66–1.33)
    0.132.10
    (0.80–5.48)
     Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.901.04
    (0.62–1.74)
    0.271.32
    (0.81–2.15)
    0.881.05
    (0.57–1.92)
    0.501.55
    (0.43–5.53)
     Hom.: AA vs. CC0.851.09
    (0.44–2.72)
    0.261.67
    (0.68–4.09)
    0.551.36
    (0.50–3.73)
    0.283.17
    (0.40–25.19)
     Alle.: A vs. C0.491.09
    (0.85–1.40)
    0.661.05
    (0.84–1.33)
    0.860.98
    (0.73–1.30)
    0.341.40
    (0.70–2.78)
    Cdx2 (rs11568820)
     Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.660.96
    (0.78–1.17)
    0.090.85
    (0.71–1.03)
    0.460.92
    (0.73–1.16)
    0.101.65
    (0.91–3.00)
     Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.900.98
    (0.72–1.33)
    0.140.81
    (0.61–1.07)
    0.650.92
    (0.65–1.31)
    0.541.36
    (0.51–3.59)
     Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.560.90
    (0.62–1.29)
    0.200.80
    (0.57–1.13)
    0.400.83
    (0.54–1.28)
    0.042.70
    (1.08–6.80)
     Hom.: TT vs. CC0.121.87
    (0.85–4.13)
    0.710.87
    (0.40–1.86)
    0.901.06
    (0.43–2.61)
    0.194.71
    (0.46–48.16)
     Alle.: T vs. C0.670.95
    (0.77–1.18)
    0.150.86
    (0.71–1.06)
    0.450.91
    (0.71–1.17)
    0.281.43
    (0.74–2.76)
    Fok1 (rs2228570)
     Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.480.93
    (0.75–1.15)
    0.080.84
    (0.68–1.02)
    0.801.03
    (0.81–1.32)
    0.022.25
    (1.12–4.52)
     Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.800.96
    (0.66–1.37)
    0.320.84
    (0.60–1.18)
    0.601.12
    (0.73–1.73)
    0.222.53
    (0.58–11.06)
     Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.430.88
    (0.63–1.21)
    0.070.75
    (0.56–1.02)
    0.910.98
    (0.67–1.43)
    0.032.73
    (1.11–6.70)
     Hom.: BB vs. AA0.831.09
    (0.51–2.34)
    0.821.09
    (0.52–2.29)
    0.791.13
    (0.46–2.74)
    0.780.75
    (0.10–5.83)
     Alle.: B vs. A0.450.92
    (0.74–1.14)
    0.160.87
    (0.71–1.06)
    0.581.07
    (0.84–1.38)
    0.101.82
    (0.90–3.70)
    Taq1 (rs731236)
     Add.: GG vs. AG vs. AA0.641.13
    (0.68–1.85)
    0.691.10
    (0.69–1.76)
    0.320.73
    (0.39–1.37)
    0.650.71
    (0.15–3.24)
     Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.691.12
    (0.66–1.90)
    0.741.09
    (0.66–1.79)
    0.440.77
    (0.40–1.48)
    0.840.85
    (0.19–3.94)
     Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA0.791.34
    (0.16–11.27)
    0.462.42
    (0.24–24.75)
    1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
    1.000.00
    (0.00–NA)
     Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
    NANA
    (NA–NA)
     Alle.: G vs. A0.621.14
    (0.68–1.90)
    0.661.11
    (0.69–1.80)
    0.320.72
    (0.38–1.37)
    0.700.74
    (0.17–3.34)
      Note. Abbreviations: Add.: additive model; Alle.: allelic model; B: degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI: confidence interval; Dom.: dominant model; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom.: homozygous model; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA: not available; OR, odds ratio; Rec.: recessive model; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; VDR: vitamin D receptor gene.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S9.   Comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (nmol/L) across genotype models of VDR gene polymorphisms in adult males and females

    GenotypeFemaleMale
    comparisonnMedianIQRP valuenMedianIQRP value
    Apa1 (rs7975232)
     Add: AA vs. AC vs. CC
      CC56158.97[49.68–69.18]0.3543963.18[53.75–72.59]0.83
      AC45358.75[49.16–68.63]34762.33[52.65–73.59]
      AA11057.04[48.40–65.71]7760.91[52.44–73.32]
     Dom: AC + AA vs. CC
      AC + AA56358.53[49.01–68.18]0.4742462.12[52.66–73.49]0.54
      CC56158.97[49.68–69.18]43963.18[53.75–72.59]
     Rec: AA vs. AC + CC
      AA11057.04[48.40–65.71]0.167760.91[52.44–73.32]0.83
      AC + CC1,01458.86[49.50–68.82]78662.63[53.24–72.72]
     Hom: AA vs. CC
      AA11057.04[48.40–65.71]0.157760.91[52.44–73.32]0.74
      CC56158.97[49.68–69.18]43963.18[53.75–72.59]
     Alle: A vs. C
      A67358.30[48.86–67.20]0.2350162.04[52.66–73.38]0.57
      C1,57558.90[49.54–68.88]1,22562.85[53.38–72.66]
    Cdx2 (rs11568820)
     Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC
      CC33459.17[50.94–68.68]0.2030461.79[53.30–72.53]0.69
      CT57659.08[48.96–69.29]39063.11[53.50–72.93]
      TT21456.48[48.30–67.03]16961.65[51.85–72.31]
     Dom.: CT + TT vs. CC
      CT + TT79058.35[48.80–68.56]0.4155962.76[53.14–72.88]0.72
      CC33459.17[50.94–68.68]30461.79[53.30–72.53]
     Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC
      TT21456.48[48.30–67.03]0.0816961.65[51.85–72.31]0.56
      CT + CC91059.15[49.50–69.12]69462.83[53.46–72.73]
     Hom.: TT vs. CC
      TT21456.48[48.30–67.03]0.0816961.65[51.85–72.31]0.81
      CC33459.17[50.94–68.68]30461.79[53.30–72.53]
     Alle: T vs. C
      T1,00458.00[48.65–68.27]0.1372862.59[52.78–72.82]0.93
      C1,24459.15[49.95–68.88]99862.61[53.36–72.66]
    Fok1 (rs2228570)
     Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA
      AA24357.56[48.62–69.02]0.8317263.52[54.12–73.35]0.47
      AB56158.75[49.14–69.11]45762.44[53.50–72.16]
      BB32059.04[49.98–67.16]23461.49[51.87–72.67]
     Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA
      BB + AB88158.87[49.43–68.55]0.5469162.30[53.17–72.33]0.40
      AA24357.56[48.62–69.02]17263.52[54.12–73.35]
     Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA
      BB32059.04[49.98–67.16]0.8723461.49[51.87–72.67]0.27
      AB + AA80458.37[49.03–69.07]62962.80[53.64–72.82]
     Hom.: BB vs. AA
      BB32059.04[49.98–67.16]0.6223461.49[51.87–72.67]0.24
      AA24357.56[48.62–69.02]17263.52[54.12–73.35]
     Alle.: B vs. A
      B1,20158.92[49.55–68.41]0.6592562.16[52.72–72.54]0.24
      A1,04758.32[49.01–69.02]80162.99[53.89–72.93]
    Taq1 (rs731236)
     Add.: GG vs AG vs. AA
      AA1,00558.53[49.43–68.66]0.9278762.37[53.24–72.59]0.50
      AG11460.05[48.85–67.77]7264.27[52.80–75.16]
      GG553.88[37.14–74.36]467.28[66.31–71.96]
     Dom.: AG + GG vs. AA
      AG + GG11959.98[48.95–67.63]0.917664.98[53.28–74.37]0.46
      AA1,00558.53[49.43–68.66]78762.37[53.24–72.59]
     Rec.: GG vs AG + AA
      GG553.88[37.14–74.36]0.68467.28[66.31–71.96]0.30
      AG + AA1,11958.73[49.36–68.59]85962.56[53.20–72.72]
     Hom.: GG vs. AA
      GG553.88[37.14–74.36]0.68467.28[66.31–71.96]0.29
      AA1,00558.53[49.43–68.66]78762.37[53.24–72.59]
     Alle.: G vs. A
      G12459.97[49.01–67.61]0.848065.45[53.57–73.86]0.34
      A2,12458.64[49.41–68.64]1,64662.49[53.23–72.66]
      Note. Abbreviations: Add., additive model; Alle., allelic model; B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; Dom., dominant model; Hom., homozygous model; IQR, interquartile range; Rec., recessive model; VDR, vitamin D receptor gene.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  4.   Interactions between plasma 25OHD concentrations and SNPs of VDR, Cdx2 (rs11568820) and Fok1 (rs2228570) on the occurrence of dyslipidemia

    GenotypeFemaleMale
    LDLC, ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC, < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
    POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
    Cdx2
     CC0.111.02 (1.00–1.05)
     CT0.281.02 (0.99–1.05)
     TT0.021.03 (1.01–1.06)
    Fok1
     AA0.080.99 (0.98–1.00)0.461.01 (0.98–1.05)
     AB0.130.99 (0.98–1.00)0.171.02 (0.99–1.05)
     BB0.581.00 (0.99–1.01)0.021.03 (1.01–1.06)
      Note. Abbreviations: 25OHD: 25-hydroxyvitamin D; B: degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI: confidence interval; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; OR: odds ratio; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; TG: triglyceride; –: interaction analyses were not conducted due to negative findings in the logistic regression analyses for the genotypes.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S5.   Genetic model comparison of Apa1 (rs7975232) in vitamin D receptor gene between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

    Gene
    models
    Additive modelDominant modelRecessive modelHomozygous modelAllelic model
    AAACCCAA + ACCCAAAC + CCAACCAC
    DL
     n482212662692664848748266317753
     %9.041.349.750.349.79.091.015.384.729.670.4
    ND
     n1395797347187341391,3131397348572,047
     %9.539.950.649.450.69.690.415.984.129.570.5
    Total
     n1878001,0009871,0001871,8001871,0001,1742,800
     %9.440.350.349.750.39.490.615.884.229.570.5
     χ20.400.110.170.100.01
     P value0.820.740.680.790.94
    下载: 导出CSV

    S10.   Comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (nmol/L) in abnormal and normal lipid groups of adult males and females

    GenotypeFemaleMale
    comparisonnMedianIQRP valuenMedianIQRP value
    TG
     ≥ 2.3 mmol/L9257.79[49.43–65.74]0.4021359.58[49.47–69.60]< 0.01
     < 2.3 mmol/L1,03258.80[49.25–68.85]65063.43[54.29–73.70]
    TC
     ≥ 6.2 mmol/L15159.19[47.87–72.64]0.6811159.18[49.73–71.13]0.09
     < 6.2 mmol/L97358.56[49.55–68.31]75262.92[53.42–72.93]
    LDLC
     ≥ 4.1 mmol/L2956.70[45.80–66.12]0.521755.45[45.07–74.43]0.20
     < 4.1 mmol/L1,09558.78[49.41–68.66]84662.65[53.27–72.72]
    HDLC
     < 1.0 mmol/L2267.80[59.52–78.05]< 0.012069.35[57.83–83.61]0.11
     ≥ 1.0 mmol/L1,10258.52[49.13–68.44]84362.57[53.19–72.59]
      Note. Abbreviations: HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; IQR, interquartile range; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S11.   Simple linear regressions between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and lipid profiles

    Lipid profilesFemaleMale
    βP valueβP value
    lg TG< 0.0010.902− 0.003< 0.001
    TC0.0010.647− 0.0030.088
    LDLC− 0.0010.584− 0.0030.006
    HDLC< 0.0010.461− 0.0010.025
      Note. Abbreviations: HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] Ruiz-Ojeda FJ, Anguita-Ruiz A, Leis R, et al. Genetic factors and molecular mechanisms of vitamin D and obesity relationship. Ann Nutr Metab, 2018; 73, 89−99. doi:  10.1159/000490669
    [2] Wang Y, Si SY, Liu JL, et al. The associations of serum lipids with vitamin D status. PLoS One, 2016; 11, e0165157. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0165157
    [3] Dibaba DT. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on serum lipid profiles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev, 2019; 77, 890−902. doi:  10.1093/nutrit/nuz037
    [4] Wang H, Xia N, Yang Y, et al. Influence of vitamin D supplementation on plasma lipid profiles: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lipids Health Dis, 2012; 11, 42. doi:  10.1186/1476-511X-11-42
    [5] Abouzid M, Karazniewicz-Lada M, Glowka F. Genetic determinants of vitamin D-related disorders; focus on vitamin D receptor. Curr Drug Metab, 2018; 19, 1042−52. doi:  10.2174/1389200219666180723143552
    [6] Jolliffe DA, Walton RT, Griffiths CJ, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the vitamin D pathway associating with circulating concentrations of vitamin D metabolites and non-skeletal health outcomes: review of genetic association studies. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2016; 164, 18−29. doi:  10.1016/j.jsbmb.2015.12.007
    [7] Manuel S, Federica C, Monica C, et al. Vitamin D receptor in muscle atrophy of elderly patients: a key element of osteoporosis-sarcopenia connection. Aging Dis, 2018; 9, 952−64. doi:  10.14336/AD.2018.0215
    [8] Endo I, Inoue D, Mitsui T, et al. Deletion of vitamin D receptor gene in mice results in abnormal skeletal muscle development with deregulated expression of myoregulatory transcription factors. Endocrinology, 2003; 144, 5138−44. doi:  10.1210/en.2003-0502
    [9] Girgis CM, Cha KM, Houweling PJ, et al. Vitamin D receptor ablation and vitamin D deficiency result in reduced grip strength, altered muscle fibers, and increased myostatin in mice. Calcif Tissue Int, 2015; 97, 602−10. doi:  10.1007/s00223-015-0054-x
    [10] Levin GP, Robinson-Cohen C, de Boer IH, et al. Genetic variants and associations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations with major clinical outcomes. JAMA, 2012; 308, 1898−905. doi:  10.1001/jama.2012.17304
    [11] Ramagopalan SV, Heger A, Berlanga AJ, et al. A ChIP-seq defined genome-wide map of vitamin D receptor binding: associations with disease and evolution. Genome Res, 2010; 20, 1352−60. doi:  10.1101/gr.107920.110
    [12] Martínez-Sena T, Soluyanova P, Guzmán C, et al. The vitamin D receptor regulates glycerolipid and phospholipid metabolism in human hepatocytes. Biomolecules, 2020; 10, 493. doi:  10.3390/biom10030493
    [13] Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender differences in health: science & society series on sex and science. EMBO Rep, 2012; 13, 596−603. doi:  10.1038/embor.2012.87
    [14] Yoon H, Jeong DK, Park CE, et al. The association between gender difference with metabolic syndrome, metabolic syndrome score and serum vitamin D levels in Korean adults. Int J Food Sci Nutr, 2017; 68, 121−9. doi:  10.1080/09637486.2016.1221899
    [15] de Jongh RT, Lips P, Rijs KJ, et al. Associations between vitamin D receptor genotypes and mortality in a cohort of older Dutch individuals. Eur J Endocrinol, 2011; 164, 75−82. doi:  10.1530/EJE-10-0688
    [16] Khan MI, Bielecka ZF, Najm MZ, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms in breast and renal cancer: current state and future approaches (review). Int J Oncol, 2014; 44, 349−63. doi:  10.3892/ijo.2013.2204
    [17] Iqbal MUN, Khan TA. Association between Vitamin D receptor (Cdx2, Fok1, Bsm1, Apa1, Bgl1, Taq1, and Poly (A)) gene polymorphism and breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tumor Biol, 2017; 39, 1−9.
    [18] Cobayashi F, Lourenço BH, Cardoso MA. 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels, BsmI polymorphism and insulin resistance in Brazilian Amazonian children. Int J Mol Sci, 2015; 16, 12531−46. doi:  10.3390/ijms160612531
    [19] Rahmadhani R, Zaharan NL, Mohamed Z, et al. The associations between VDR BsmI polymorphisms and risk of vitamin D deficiency, obesity and insulin resistance in adolescents residing in a tropical country. PLoS One, 2017; 12, e0178695. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0178695
    [20] Santos BR, Mascarenhas LPG, Satler F, et al. Vitamin D deficiency in girls from South Brazil: a cross-sectional study on prevalence and association with vitamin D receptor gene variants. BMC Pediatr, 2012; 12, 62.
    [21] Ni WQ, Liu XL, Zhuo ZP, et al. Serum lipids and associated factors of dyslipidemia in the adult population in Shenzhen. Lipids Health Dis, 2015; 14, 71. doi:  10.1186/s12944-015-0073-7
    [22] Joint Committee for Guideline Revision National Expert Committee on Cardiovascular Diseases, National Center for Cardiovascular DiseasesChinese Society of Cardiology, Chinese Medical AssociationChinese Diabetes Society, et al. 2016 Chinese guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia in adults. J Geriatr Cardiol, 2018; 15, 1−29.
    [23] Xu P, Zhu YM, Liang XS, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of superoxide dismutase 1 are associated with the serum lipid profiles of Han Chinese adults in a sexually dimorphic manner. PLoS One, 2020; 15, e0234716. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0234716
    [24] Zhou JC, Zhu YM, Gong CM, et al. The GC2 haplotype of the vitamin D binding protein is a risk factor for a low plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration in a Han Chinese population. Nutr Metab, 2019; 16, 5. doi:  10.1186/s12986-019-0332-0
    [25] Xu YX, Lou Y, Kong J. VDR regulates energy metabolism by modulating remodeling in adipose tissue. Eur J Pharmacol, 2019; 865, 172761. doi:  10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.172761
    [26] Xiang W, Cheng S, Zhou Y, et al. Effects of 1, 25(OH)2D3 on lipid droplet growth in adipocytes. BioFactors, 2020; 46, 943−54. doi:  10.1002/biof.1610
    [27] Kong J, Li YC. Molecular mechanism of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 inhibition of adipogenesis in 3T3-L1 cells. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2006; 290, E916−24. doi:  10.1152/ajpendo.00410.2005
    [28] Wood RJ. Vitamin D and adipogenesis: new molecular insights. Nutr Rev, 2008; 66, 40−6. doi:  10.1111/j.1753-4887.2007.00004.x
    [29] Dace A, Martin-el Yazidi C, Bonne J, et al. Calcitriol is a positive effector of adipose differentiation in the OB 17 cell line: relationship with the adipogenic action of triiodothyronine. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 1997; 232, 771−6. doi:  10.1006/bbrc.1997.6372
    [30] Burton GR, Guan Y, Nagarajan R, et al. Microarray analysis of gene expression during early adipocyte differentiation. Gene, 2002; 293, 21−31. doi:  10.1016/S0378-1119(02)00726-6
    [31] Gerhold DL, Liu F, Jiang GQ, et al. Gene expression profile of adipocyte differentiation and its regulation by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonists. Endocrinology, 2002; 143, 2106−18. doi:  10.1210/endo.143.6.8842
    [32] Wang JH, Keisala T, Solakivi T, et al. Serum cholesterol and expression of ApoAI, LXRβ and SREBP2 in vitamin D receptor knock-out mice. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2009; 113, 222−6. doi:  10.1016/j.jsbmb.2009.01.003
    [33] Oh J, Riek AE, Darwech I, et al. Deletion of macrophage vitamin D receptor promotes insulin resistance and monocyte cholesterol transport to accelerate atherosclerosis in mice. Cell Rep, 2015; 10, 1872−86. doi:  10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.043
    [34] Al-Daghri NM, Al-Attas OS, Alkharfy KM, et al. Association of VDR-gene variants with factors related to the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and vitamin D deficiency. Gene, 2014; 542, 129−33. doi:  10.1016/j.gene.2014.03.044
    [35] Hasan HA, AbuOdeh RO, Muda WAMBW, et al. Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with metabolic syndrome and its components among adult Arabs from the United Arab Emirates. Diabetes Metab Syndr: Clin Res Rev, 2017; 11, S531−7. doi:  10.1016/j.dsx.2017.03.047
    [36] Abdeltif E, Benrahma H, Charoute H, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and vitamin D status and susceptibility to type 2 diabetes mellitus in Moroccans patients. Int J Sci Res Pub, 2014; 4, 1−8.
    [37] Jia J, Tang YY, Shen C, et al. Vitamin D receptor polymorphism rs2228570 is significantly associated with risk of dyslipidemia and serum LDL levels in Chinese Han population. Lipids Health Dis, 2018; 17, 193. doi:  10.1186/s12944-018-0819-0
    [38] He LN, Wang MH. Association of vitamin d receptor-a gene polymorphisms with coronary heart disease in Han Chinese. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015; 8, 6224−9.
    [39] Filus A, Trzmiel A, Kuliczkowska-Płaksej J, et al. Relationship between vitamin D receptor BsmI and FokI polymorphisms and anthropometric and biochemical parameters describing metabolic syndrome. Aging Male, 2008; 11, 134−9. doi:  10.1080/13685530802273426
    [40] Xia Z, Hu YZ, Han ZT, et al. Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with diabetic dyslipidemia in the elderly male population in North China. Clin Interv Aging, 2017; 12, 1673−9. doi:  10.2147/CIA.S145700
    [41] Hajj A, Chedid R, Chouery E, et al. Relationship between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, cardiovascular risk factors and adiponectin in a healthy young population. Pharmacogenomics, 2016; 17, 1675−86. doi:  10.2217/pgs-2016-0045
    [42] Karonova T, Grineva E, Belyaeva O, et al. Relationship between vitamin D status and vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with markers of metabolic syndrome among adults. Front Endocrinol, 2018; 9, 448. doi:  10.3389/fendo.2018.00448
    [43] Shen F, Wang Y, Sun HL, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms are associated with triceps skin fold thickness and body fat percentage but not with body mass index or waist circumference in Han Chinese. Lipids Health Dis, 2019; 18, 97. doi:  10.1186/s12944-019-1027-2
    [44] Vasilopoulos Y, Sarafidou T, Kotsa K, et al. VDR TaqI is associated with obesity in the Greek population. Gene, 2013; 512, 237−9. doi:  10.1016/j.gene.2012.10.044
    [45] Safar HA, El Hajj Chehadeh S, Abdel-Wareth L, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms among Emirati patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2018; 175, 119−24. doi:  10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.03.012
    [46] Al-Daghri NM, Al-Attas O, Alokail MS, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and HLA DRB1*04 cosegregation in Saudi type 2 diabetes patients. J Immunol, 2012; 188, 1325−32. doi:  10.4049/jimmunol.1101954
    [47] Schuch NJ, Garcia VC, Vívolo SRGF, et al. Relationship between Vitamin D Receptor gene polymorphisms and the components of metabolic syndrome. Nutr J, 2013; 12, 96. doi:  10.1186/1475-2891-12-96
    [48] Sah SK, Adhikary LP. Association between dyslipidemia and serum level of 25-Hydroxyvitamin-D in early chronic kidney disease, not on dialysis: an observational cross-sectional study from the Himalayan country. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis, 2020; 13, 211−8. doi:  10.2147/IJNRD.S267252
    [49] Roffe-Vazquez DN, Huerta-Delgado AS, Castillo EC, et al. Correlation of vitamin D with inflammatory cytokines, atherosclerotic parameters, and lifestyle factors in the setting of heart failure: a 12-month follow-up study. Int J Mol Sci, 2019; 20, 5811. doi:  10.3390/ijms20225811
    [50] Jin D, Zhu DM, Hu HL, et al. Vitamin D status affects the relationship between lipid profile and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Nutr Metab, 2020; 17, 57. doi:  10.1186/s12986-020-00455-x
    [51] Glueck CJ, Jetty V, Rothschild M, et al. Associations between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and lipids, lipoprotein cholesterols, and homocysteine. North Am J Med Sci, 2016; 8, 284−90. doi:  10.4103/1947-2714.187137
    [52] Lupton JR, Faridi KF, Martin SS, et al. Deficient serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with an atherogenic lipid profile: the Very Large Database of Lipids (VLDL-3) study. J Clin Lipidol, 2016; 10, 72−81. e1. doi:  10.1016/j.jacl.2015.09.006
    [53] Li HWR, Brereton RE, Anderson RA, et al. Vitamin D deficiency is common and associated with metabolic risk factors in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Metabolism, 2011; 60, 1475−81. doi:  10.1016/j.metabol.2011.03.002
    [54] Zhou JC, Zhu YM, Guo P, et al. Serum 25(OH)D and lipid levels in Chinese obese and normal weight males before and after oral vitamin D supplementation. Biomed Environ Sci, 2013; 26, 801−7.
    [55] Patwardhan VG, Khadilkar AV, Chiplonkar SA, et al. Varying relationship between 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, and serum 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase with sunlight exposure. J Clin Lipidol, 2015; 9, 652−7. doi:  10.1016/j.jacl.2015.05.007
    [56] Kazemian E, Amouzegar A, Akbari ME, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms affecting changes in visceral fat, waist circumference and lipid profile in breast cancer survivors supplemented with vitamin D3. Lipids Health Dis, 2019; 18, 161. doi:  10.1186/s12944-019-1100-x
    [57] Jain R, von Hurst PR, Stonehouse W, et al. Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with insulin resistance and response to vitamin D. Metabolism, 2012; 61, 293−301. doi:  10.1016/j.metabol.2011.06.018
    [58] El Gendy HI, Sadik NA, Helmy MY, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and 25(OH) vitamin D: lack of association to glycemic control and metabolic parameters in type 2 diabetic Egyptian patients. J Clin Transl Endocrinol, 2019; 15, 25−9.
    [59] Zaki M, Kamal S, Basha WA, et al. Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism (VDR) with vitamin D deficiency, metabolic and inflammatory markers in Egyptian obese women. Genes Dis, 2017; 4, 176−82. doi:  10.1016/j.gendis.2017.07.002
    [60] Sangkaew B, Nuinoon M, Jeenduang N. Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with serum 25(OH)D levels and metabolic syndrome in Thai population. Gene, 2018; 659, 59−66. doi:  10.1016/j.gene.2018.03.047
    [61] Saijo T, Ito M, Takeda E, et al. A unique mutation in the vitamin D receptor gene in three Japanese patients with vitamin D-dependent rickets type II: utility of single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis for heterozygous carrier detection. Am J Hum Genet, 1991; 49, 668−73.
    [62] Arai H, Miyamoto KI, Taketani Y, et al. A vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism in the translation initiation codon: effect on protein activity and relation to bone mineral density in Japanese women. J Bone Miner Res, 1997; 12, 915−21. doi:  10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.6.915
    [63] Arai H, Miyamoto KI, Yoshida M, et al. The polymorphism in the caudal-related homeodomain protein Cdx-2 binding element in the human vitamin D receptor gene. J Bone Miner Res, 2001; 16, 1256−64. doi:  10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.7.1256
  • [1] ZHANG Mei, PENG Ke, ZHANG Xiao, LIU Yi Shu, LIU Xiao Ying, HAN Gui Yuan, SHI Yu, HUANG Zheng Jing, LI Chun, ZHAO Zhen Ping, WANG Li Min, LI Yi Chong.  Geographic Variations in the Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Dyslipidemia among Chinese Adults in 2018–2019: A Cross-sectional Study . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(4): 313-323. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.037
    [2] WANG Jun, WANG Yan, HAN Han, WANG Teng, SHEN Fang, LI Wen Jie, LI Xing.  Association of Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms with Metabolic Syndrome in Rural Areas of China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2019, 32(4): 304-308. doi: 10.3967/bes2019.041
    [3] SONG Peng Kun, MAN Qing Qing, LI Hong, PANG Shao Jie, JIA Shan Shan, LI Yu Qian, HE Li, ZHAO Wen Hua, ZHANG Jian.  Trends in Lipids Level and Dyslipidemia among Chinese Adults, 2002-2015 . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2019, 32(8): 559-570. doi: 10.3967/bes2019.074
    [4] LIANG Zhu, QIU Qiao Yan, WU Jia Hui, ZHOU Jing Wen, XU Tian, ZHANG Ming Zhi, ZHANG Yong Hong, ZHANG Shao Yan.  Alcohol Drinking, Dyslipidemia, and Diabetes:A Population-based Prospective Cohort Study among Inner Mongolians in China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2016, 29(8): 555-562. doi: 10.3967/bes2016.074
    [5] HU Bo, LIU Xiao Yu, ZHENG Yao, FAN Hong Min, YIN Su Feng, GUO Chun Yue, LI Yun, WU Shou Ling, FENG Fu Min, YUAN Ju Xiang.  High Physical Activity is Associated with an Improved Lipid Profile and Resting Heart Rate among Healthy Middle-aged Chinese People . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(4): 263-271. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.037
    [6] YOU Hai Fei, ZHAO Jing Zhi, ZHAI Yu Jia, YIN Lei, PANG Chao, LUO Xin Ping, ZHANG Ming, WANG Jin Jin, LI Lin Lin, WANG Yan, WANG Qian, WANG Bing Yuan, REN Yong Cheng, HU Dong Sheng.  Association between Low-density Lipoprotein Receptor-related Protein 5 Polymorphisms and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Han Chinese:a Case-control Study . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(7): 510-517. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.073
    [7] ZHANG Rong Hua, HE Deng Hua, ZHOU Biao, ZHU Yi Bo, ZHAO Dong, HUANG Li Chun, DING Gang Qiang.  Analysis of Vitamin D Status in Men Highly Exposed to Sunlight . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(12): 913-916. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.125
    [8] SUN Ji Chao, HUANG Xiao Lin, DENG Xin Ru, LV Xiao Fei, LU Jie Li, CHEN Yu Hong, BI Yu Fang, WANG Wei Qing, XU Min, NING Guang.  Elevated Resting Heart Rate is Associated with Dyslipidemia in Middle-aged and Elderly Chinese . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(8): 601-605. doi: 10.3967/bes2014.092
    [9] XU Tian, ZHANG Jin Tao, YANG Mei, ZHANG Huan, LIU Wen Qing, KONG Yan, XU Tan, ZHANG Yong Hong.  Dyslipidemia and Outcome in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(2): 106-110. doi: 10.3967/bes2014.023
    [10] LIN Si En, HUANG Jian Ping, WU Ling Zhi, WU Tie, CUI Liao.  Prevention of Osteopenia and Dyslipidemia in Rats after Ovariectomy with Combined Aspirin and Low-dose Diethylstilbestrol . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(4): 249-257. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.04.003
    [11] ZHOU Ji Chang, ZHU Yu Mei, GUO Ping, CHEN Zheng, XIE Feng Zhu, LIU Xiao Li, HE Shan.  Serum 25(OH)D and Lipid Levels in Chinese Obese and Normal Weight Males before and after Oral Vitamin D Supplementation . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(10): 801-807. doi: 10.3967/bes2013.003
    [12] ZHANG Ling Xia, SUN Ying, LIANG Yu, LI Kui, CHEN Yong, GUSANGLAMU, WANG Jian.  Relationship between Dyslipidemia and Gene Polymorphism in Tibetan Population . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(3): 305-310. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.03.008
    [13] MENG LingHui, LUO Na, MI Jie.  Impacts of Types and Degree of Obesity on Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Related Dyslipidemia in Chinese School-Age Children? . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2011, 24(1): 22-30. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2011.01.003
    [14] LEI HUANG, XIAO-MING SONG, WEN-LI ZHU, YONG LI.  Plasma Homocysteine and Gene Polymorphisms Associated with the Risk of Hyperlipidemia in Northern Chinese Subjects . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2008, 21(6): 514-520.
    [15] SHAN-FA YU, WEN-HUI ZHOU, KAI-YOU JIANG, GUI-ZHENG GU, SHENG WANG.  Job Stress, Gene Polymorphism of β2-AR, and Prevalence of Hypertension . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2008, 21(3): 239-246.
    [16] XIAO-CHAO CHEN, MING-TONG XU, WU ZHOU, CHUN-LI HAN, WEI-QING CHEN.  A Meta-analysis of β-fibrinogen Gene-455G/A Polymorphism and Plasma Fibrinogen Level in Chinese Cerebral Infarction Patients . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2007, 20(5): 366-372.
    [17] WEN-HUA ZHAO, JIAN ZHANG, YI ZHAI, YUE YOU, QING-QING MAN, CHUN-RONG WANG, HONG LI, YING LI, XIAO-GUANG YANG.  Blood Lipid Profile and Prevalence of Dyslipidemia in Chinese Adults . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2007, 20(4): 329-335.
    [18] XIAO-MING SONG, XIAO-YING ZHENG, WEN-LI ZHU, LEI HUANG, YONG LI.  Relationship Between Polymorphism of Cystathionine beta Synthase Gene and Congenital Heart Disease in Chinese Nuclear Families . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2006, 19(6): 452-456.
    [19] JUN CHENG, WEN-LI ZHU, JING-JING DAO, SHU-QING LI, YONG LI.  Relationship Between Polymorphism of Methylenetetrahydrofolate Dehydrogenase and Congenital Heart Defect . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2005, 18(1): 58-64.
    [20] WEN-LI ZHU, JUN CHENG, JING-JING DAO, RU-BING ZHAO, LI-YING YAN, SHU-QING LI, YONG LI.  Polymorphism of Methionine Synthase Gene in Nuclear Families of Congenital Heart Disease . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2004, 17(1): 57-64.
  • 21077Supplementary Materials.pdf
  • 加载中
图(1) / 表ll (15)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  767
  • HTML全文浏览量:  239
  • PDF下载量:  52
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2021-03-02
  • 录用日期:  2021-07-19
  • 刊出日期:  2022-02-23

Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults

doi: 10.3967/bes2022.016
    基金项目:  This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 81973038] and Science, Technology and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality, China [grant number JCYJ20200109142446804]
    作者简介:

    CHEN Yan Mei, born in 1996, female, Master’s Degree, majoring in public health nutrition

    XU Ping, born in 1995, female, Master’s Degree, majoring in public health nutrition

    通讯作者: ZHOU Ji Chang, Associate Professor, PhD, Tel: 86-20-83226383, E-mail: zhoujch8@mail.sysu.edu.cn

English Abstract

CHEN Yan Mei, XU Ping, WANG Zhou Tian, ZHU Yu Mei, GONG Chun Mei, HUANG Chang Hua, LIU Xiao Li, ZHOU Ji Chang. Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(2): 115-125. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.016
Citation: CHEN Yan Mei, XU Ping, WANG Zhou Tian, ZHU Yu Mei, GONG Chun Mei, HUANG Chang Hua, LIU Xiao Li, ZHOU Ji Chang. Polymorphisms of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Sex-Differential Associations with Lipid Profiles in Chinese Han Adults[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(2): 115-125. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.016
    • Vitamin D (VD) is a micronutrient for human health, which is predominantly derived from 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin under sunlight exposure and is also absorbed from food as a secondary source. Through two steps of hydroxylation, VD is converted to 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) and then 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D]. The circulating concentration of 25OHD is generally used as a biomarker of VD status, and 1,25(OH)2D is the functional metabolite working in the manner of a hormone in the osseous and extra-osseous metabolisms[1]. Previous studies suggested that VD deficiency was associated with abdominal obesity and/or dyslipidemia[2], and many studies supported the opinion that VD supplementation was beneficial for ameliorating lipid profiles[3]. However, confounders in various populations led to inconsistency for each of the lipid parameters, namely triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), as suggested by human studies and meta-analyses[3, 4]. Researchers have to conduct a close examination of those potential confounders and pay special attention to the functioning of the VD receptor (VDR), which is the most important mediator of the VD function[5].

      VDR gene variants have the potential to influence biological outcomes[5, 6]. It has been reported that VDR has an effect on skeletal muscles independent of VD, and the decreased expression of VDR protein is related to various disease states and aging[7]. In the VDR knockout animal model, a decreased size and muscle fiber strength were observed, and VDR expression is also required in myoblasts[8, 9]. Aside from skeletal health status, it was also reported that the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of VDR were associated with risks to non-skeletal health[6], such as myocardial infarction, cancer, and death[10]. Moreover, these kinds of associations aroused concerns about dyslipidemia since expressions of some lipid metabolism-related genes are regulated by calcitriol-stimulation[11], and some may even have VD-responsive elements (VDREs) to bind the 1,25(OH)2D-activated VDR[12]. Thus, both the VD status and the VDR function have the potential to affect the expressions of lipid metabolic genes, ultimately affecting the physiological activities of cells[1]. Moreover, by involving biological (in terms of reproductive function, sexual hormones, expressions of heterosome-located genes, etc.) and lifestyle (e.g., smoking, drinking, physical activity, etc.) factors[13], sexual dimorphism should be taken into careful consideration when conducting medical research[14].

      Located on chromosome 12, the VDR gene spans at least 75 kb in length. From the 5’–3’ direction of its sense (forward) strand, Cdx2 (rs11568820, C > T), Fok1 [rs2228570, A > B (degenerate base standing for C, G, and T, i.e., not A)], Apa1 (rs7975232, C > A), and Taq1 (rs731236, A > G) are the generally the relevant SNPs in various ethnicity groups[15-17]. These SNPs may affect mRNA expression, amino acid sequence, and protein activity. Particularly, VDR SNPs have been reported to have effects on 25OHD levels in circulation[18, 19]. For example, Santos et al.[20] studied a group of Brazilian girls aged 7–18 years and found that the VDR wild-types of Bsm1, Apa1, and Taq1 were associated with lower 25OHD levels. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the relationship between VDR SNPs and specific lipid parameters, as well as VD status in both females and males. In the present study, we focused on the VDR SNPs of Apa1, Cdx2, Fok1, and Taq1 in this regard, which have been studied in genotype-phenotype associations, in order to avoid weak evidence or unknown biological significance for less studied or new SNPs regarding their associations with lipids.

    • The sample size (N) was estimated with the formula N ≥ (Z1-α/2/δ)2 × p × (1 – p), wherein Z was 1.96 for the two-sided 95% confidential intervals (CIs), P was the dyslipidemia prevalence of 34.64% in Shenzhen adults as known in 2012 but unpublished at the design stage of our study[21], δ was 2.2%, representing tolerable error, and the calculated N was 1,798.

      After signing written consent forms to be subjects in the study, adult volunteers visiting a health examination center in Shenzhen City in Guangdong Province, China, were recruited between July 2013 and January 2014. A questionnaire survey administered via face-to-face interview was conducted to collect the basic health information of each participant. The inclusion criteria were: 1) Han Chinese aged ≥ 20 years old; 2) living in Shenzhen for > 2 years; 3) free of liver diseases, renal diseases, and any cancers in the past six months; and 4) not pregnant (for women). The excluded subjects were those who 1) had severe organic diseases, 2) had acute infection symptoms, allergic diseases, and malignant tumors, 3) had a family history of genetic diseases including familial dyslipidemia, 4) had taken VD supplements in the past six months, 5) had taken medicines to control lipid levels within the past 12 hours, or 6) had taken diuretics, engaged in strenuous exercise, or had overeaten within the 24 hours before the test.

      From ulnar veins of the subjects, who had fasted overnight, blood samples were collected with vacuum tubes, and within two hours post-collection, supernatant and blood cells were separated by centrifugation of 3,000 ×g at 4 °C for 10 min. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated as body weight (kg)/ height (m)2. The above protocol for the cross-sectional study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Shenzhen Center for Chronic Disease Control and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration ID number NCT04707612).

    • Parameters of lipids, glucose, hemogram, etc., were assayed right on the day, and the rest of the samples were aliquoted with EP tubes and stored at -80 °C for later use. The systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of the subjects were measured by a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was detected with a Japan Arkray Instruments analyzer (ion chromatography method). The serum levels of TG, TC, LDLC, HDLC, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were tested by the Beckman-LX20 automatic biochemical analyzer. The plasma 25OHD concentration was detected with a commercial ELISA kit (Cat. #: AC-57F1, IDS Ltd., UK). According to the Chinese guidelines for dyslipidemia management[22], TG ≥ 2.3 mmol/L, TC ≥ 6.2 mmol/L, LDLC ≥ 4.1 mmol/L, HDLC < 1.0 mmol/L, or previously diagnosed dyslipidemia, were the criteria used to define the dyslipidemia group (DL), and those subjects who did not match the DL criteria were assigned to the non-dyslipidemia group (ND).

      In the logistic analyses, from the viewpoint of preventive medicine, as well as to avoid the small subject numbers for the genotypes of low minor allele frequency (MAF)[23], the available marginally-elevated cut-off values for TG (≥ 1.7 mmol/L), TC (≥ 5.2 mmol/L), and LDLC (≥ 3.4 mmol/L), as well as the only available cut-off value for HDLC (< 1.0 mmol/L), were used to define the abnormal subgroups for the corresponding lipid parameters.

    • The protocols for DNA preparation and SNP genotyping described in our previous studies[23, 24] were also adopted in the present study. Briefly, an asymmetric amplification with molecular beacon-based real-time quantitative PCR (MB-qPCR) followed by a melting step was performed to determine the variation of the SNP loci. Before its application to the large sample size analysis, the method was verified with the gold standard of Sanger sequencing (ThermoFisher, Shanghai, China). The information of primers and molecular beacons for the genotyping experiment with qPCR (Roche 480II, Singapore) is presented in Supplementary Table S1, available in www.besjournal.com.

      Table S1.  The information of molecular beacon probes and primers for genotyping the four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of vitamin D receptor gene (VDR)

      NCBI rs IDSNP nameAllelesaPositionbOligo nameOligo sequence, 5’–3’ directioncLength of
      amplicon, bp
      rs11568820Cdx2C > Tpromoter region,ProbecctgaTTACTGTGACCTAGTTTACTCAGG179
      chr12:47908762Forward primerCAATGAAAGCAAACCAAGGGGTCTTC
      Backward primerAGGAAGGAAAAGAGGATAGAGAAAAT
      rs2228570Fok1A > Bdexon 2, chr12:47879112ProbeccgcGGGATGGAGGCAATGGCGG178
      Forward primerCACTGACTCTGGCTCTGACCGT
      Backward primerGCAGCCTTCACAGGTCATA
      rs7975232Apa1C > Aintron 8, chr12:47845054ProbeectTGGGCCCCTCACTGCTCAAg185
      rs731236Taq1 A > Gexon 9, chr12:47844974ProbeecgcGGATGGCCTCAATCAGCGCG
      Forward primerGGCGGCAGCGGATGTACG
      Backward primerGCCGTTGAGTGTCTGTGT
        Note. aThe usages of these alleles are consistent to those used in the NCBI dbSNP database. bLocation of the allelic bases on the VDR and chromosome 12. cIn the probe sequence, the lowercase letters at the 5’ or 3’ end are adaptor bases, and the highlighted letters are one of the alleles in the SNP locus. dB, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T, i.e. not A. eApa1 and Taq1 were detected with their respective probe on the same qPCR amplicon.

      The nucleotide bases used in our study were consistent with those in dbSNP of NCBI, i.e., C > T for rs11568820 (Cdx2), A > B (not A) for rs2228570 (Fok1), C > A for rs7975232 (Apa1), and A > G for rs731236 (Taq1). If the complementary bases [G > A for Cdx2, T > V (standing for A, C, and G) for Fok1, G > T for Apa1, and T > C for Taq1], or the letter standing for the DNA-digestibility with the corresponding restriction enzyme (f > F for Fok1, a > A for Apa1, and T > t for Taq1), were used in the references, the original usages were provided as bracketed annotations in our article.

    • The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Clinical data were presented as medians and interquartile ranges (25% to 75%) and compared with rank-sum tests (Wilcoxon rank test or Kruskal-Wallis rank test). The genotypes of the four SNPs were tested with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) analyses for sampling representation. For genotypic comparisons, differences in allele and genotype frequencies were evaluated using the chi-square (χ2) test. The homozygous genotypes of CC for Cdx2, AA for Fok1, CC for Apa1, and AA for Taq1 were used as reference genotypes, respectively. For both genders, the additive, dominant, recessive, homozygous, and allelic models for each of the SNPs were entered into the logistic regression analyses for odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with adjustment for age, BMI, FPG, HbA1c, 25OHD, SBP, and DBP. In order to analyze the interaction between VD nutritional levels and VDR SNPs, the interaction factor calculated by 25OHD concentrations and VDR SNPs were entered into the logistic regression with adjustment for those confounders mentioned above. A simple linear regression was used to assess the association between circulating 25OHD and lipid profiles. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

    • A total of 1,987 adults were included in the analysis, aged from 20 to 81 years old. Among them, there were 1,124 females aged 39 (31–49) (median and interquartile range) years old and 863 males aged 36 (30–44) years old. The clinical profiles of the participants were divided into DL and ND for each gender, as summarized in Table 1. It was indicated that several metabolic or metabolism-related parameters were statistically different between DL and ND adults (P < 0.05), such as age, BMI, FPG, HbA1c, SBP, DBP, TG, TC, LDLC, HDLC, etc. In particular, 25OHD concentrations were statistically different between DL and ND groups in men but not in women.

      Table 1.  Clinical profiles of study subjects (medians and interquartile ranges)

      VariablesFemaleMale
      DL (n = 236)ND (n = 888)P-valueDL (n = 299)ND (n = 564)P-value
      Age, y50 (38.3–57)36 (30–46)< 0.00139 (33–47)33 (29–42)< 0.001
      BMI, kg/m223.1 (21.1–24.9)21.6 (20.0–23.2)< 0.00125.3 (24.0–27.0)23.9 (22.0–25.6)< 0.001
      25OHD, nmol/L59.3 (49.6–71.3)58.4 (49.2–68.3)0.24560.8 (50.8–71.1)63.4 (54.3–73.6)0.005
      Sun exposure time, min/w23.0 (10.0–39.0)20.0 (10.0–39.0)0.68024.0 (10.0–41.0)24.0 (13.0–50.0)0.135
      FPG, mmol/L5.6 (5.3–6.0)5.3 (5.0–5.6)< 0.0015.5 (5.2–5.9)5.3 (5.0–5.6)< 0.001
      HbA1c, %5.8 (5.5–6.1)5.5 (5.4–5.7)< 0.0015.7 (5.5–6.0)5.6 (5.4–5.8)< 0.001
      SBP, mmHg118 (108–133.8)111.5 (104–121)< 0.001126 (118–136)121.5 (112–131)< 0.001
      DBP, mmHg71 (64–79)67 (61–73)< 0.00177 (71–85)73 (67–80)< 0.001
      TG, mmol/L1.7 (1.0–2.8)0.8 (0.6–1.1)< 0.0012.7 (2.1–3.6)1.2 (0.9–1.6)< 0.001
      TC, mmol/L6.4 (5.4–6.9)4.9 (4.4–5.4)< 0.0015.7 (4.7–6.4)5.0 (4.4–5.5)< 0.001
      LDLC, mmol/L3.7 (3.0–3.9)2.7 (2.4–3.1)< 0.0013.2 (2.7–3.7)2.8 (2.5–3.1)< 0.001
      HDLC, mmol/L1.6 (1.4–1.8)1.4 (1.3–1.6)< 0.0011.5 (1.3–1.6)1.3 (1.2–1.5)< 0.001
        Note. BMI: body mass index; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; DL: dyslipidemia; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; ND: non-dyslipidemia; SBP: systolic blood pressure; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride.
    • The results of the genotyping experiment on the SNPs with MB-qPCR are shown in Supplementary Figure S1, available in www.besjournal.com. The HWE test showed that the population sampled from the Health Examination Center was representative of the population at large (Supplementary Table S2, available in www.besjournal.com). The genotypic and allelic frequencies of VDR SNPs between DL and ND groups are summarized in Supplementary Table S3, available in www.besjournal.com. In the female participants, both genotypic and allelic frequencies of Fok1 showed differences between DL and ND groups (P < 0.05); while in the male participants, these differences were not observed. The genotypic and allelic frequencies of the other three SNPs, namely Cdx2, Apa1, and Taq1, did not display significant differences between the DL and ND groups for either gender (P ≥ 0.05), and neither did their different genetic models (Supplementary Tables S4S6, available in www.besjournal.com).

      Table S6.  Genetic model comparison of Taq1 (rs731236) in vitamin D receptor gene between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

      GeneAdditive modelDominant modelRecessive modelHomozygous modelAllelic model
      modelsGGAGAAGG + AGAAGGAG + AAGGAAGA
      DL
       n2454884748825332488491,021
       %0.48.491.28.891.20.499.60.499.64.695.4
      ND
       n 7 141 1,304 148 1,304 7 1,445 7 1,304 155 2,749
       % 0.5 9.6 89.9 10.2 89.8 0.5 99.5 0.5 99.5 5.3 94.7
      Total
       n 9 186 1,792 195 1,792 9 1,978 9 1,792 204 3,770
       % 0.5 9.4 90.2 9.8 90.2 0.5 99.5 0.5 99.5 5.1 94.9
       χ2 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.11 0.92
       P value 0.64 0.35 1.00 0.74 0.34

      Figure S1.  Melting curve analyses on the polymorphisms of vitamin D receptor gene (VDR). Panel A: Melting curve of VDR Cdx2 (rs11568820, A). Panel B: Melting curve of Fok1 (rs2228570, B). Panel C: Melting curve of VDR Apa1 (rs7975232, C). Panel D: Melting curve of VDR Taq1 (rs731236, D).

      Table S2.  Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium tests on the vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, Cdx2 (rs11568820), Fok1 (rs2228570), Apa1 (rs7975232), and Taq1 (rs731236)

       GenotypenGenotype frequency, %χ2P value*
      Cdx2TTCTCC
       DL1,14220.047.034.02.060.15
       ND84519.051.030.00.800.37
       total1,98719.049.032.00.260.61
      Fok1BBABAA
       DL1,14228.052.020.02.380.12
       ND84528.050.022.00.060.81
       total1,98728.051.021.01.750.19
      Apa1AAACCC
       DL1,14210.039.051.04.850.03
       ND8459.042.049.00.090.76
       total1,9879.040.050.02.140.14
      Taq1GGAGAA
       DL1,1420.58.090.02.730.10
       ND8450.511.091.00.600.44
       total1,9871.09.090.03.010.08
        Note. Abbreviations: B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; DL, dyslipidemia; ND, non-dyslipidemia. *Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium analyses test for the genotypes of the four SNPs.

      Table S3.  Comparisons of the genotypic and allelic frequencies of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, Cdx2 (rs11568820), Fok1 (rs2228570), Apa1 (rs7975232), and Taq1 (rs731236) between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

      GenotypeFemaleMale
      DL, %
      n = 236
      ND, %
      n = 888
      χ2P valueDL, %
      n = 299
      ND, %
      n = 564
      χ2P value
      Cdx2
       TT17.819.40.9550.62020.419.10.3900.823
       CT50.051.643.845.9
       CC32.229.135.834.9
       T42.845.20.8410.35942.342.10.0060.937
       C57.254.857.757.9
      Fok1
       AA15.323.311.6580.00316.721.63.8710.144
       AB48.750.253.252.8
       BB36.026.530.125.5
       A39.648.411.6180.00143.348.03.5280.060
       B60.451.656.752.0
      Apa1
       AA9.39.90.1200.9428.79.00.3040.859
       AC41.140.141.539.5
       CC49.650.049.851.4
       A29.930.00.0010.97229.428.80.0730.787
       C70.170.070.671.2
      Taq1
       AA91.588.91.4960.47691.091.30.2560.921
       AG8.110.78.78.2
       GG0.40.50.30.5
       A95.694.21.3050.25395.395.40.0050.946
       G4.45.84.74.6
        Note. Abbreviations: B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T.

      Table S4.  Genetic model comparison of Cdx2 (rs11568820) in vitamin D receptor gene between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

      GeneAdditive modelDominant modelRecessive modelHomozygous modelAllelic model
      modelsTTCTCCTT + CTCCTTCT + CCTTCCTC
      DL
       n103249183352183103432103183455615
       %19.346.534.265.834.219.380.736.064.042.557.5
      ND
       n2807174559974552801,1722804551,2771,627
       %19.349.431.368.731.319.380.738.161.944.056.0
      Total
       n3839666381,3496383831,6043836381,7322,242
       %19.348.632.167.932.119.380.737.562.543.656.4
       χ21.541.480.000.380.67
       P value0.460.220.990.540.41
    • Logistic regression analyses were performed with adjustment for age and BMI since the adjustment for 25OHD did not change the overall correlations (see Supplementary Tables S7S8). For female participants (see Table 2), between the subgroups of LDLC (≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/L), VDR Fok1 presented significance (P < 0.05) in its additive (BB vs. AB vs. AA, P = 0.03, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03–1.59), recessive (BB vs. AB + AA, P = 0.03, OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.04–2.00), homozygous (BB vs. AA, P = 0.02, OR = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.18–7.05), and allelic (B vs. A, P = 0.04, OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.01–1.59) models, but between the subgroups of TC (≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/L) and HDLC (< 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L), no significance (P ≥ 0.05) was found in all models of the four SNPs.

      Table 2.  Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult females with adjustment for age and body mass index

      Gene modelsTG ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/LTC ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/LLDLC ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
      POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
      Apa1 (rs7975232)
       Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.451.11
      (0.84–1.48)
      0.470.93
      (0.75–1.14)
      0.391.11
      (0.87–1.42)
      0.931.03
      (0.52–2.02)
       Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.591.11
      (0.77–1.59)
      0.340.88
      (0.67–1.15)
      0.591.09
      (0.79–1.50)
      0.841.10
      (0.45–2.69)
       Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.761.10
      (0.61–1.98)
      0.860.96
      (0.62–1.48)
      0.351.27
      (0.77–2.09)
      0.950.96
      (0.22–4.22)
       Hom.: AA vs. CC0.200.25
      (0.03–2.05)
      0.561.31
      (0.53–3.22)
      0.172.01
      (0.74–5.50)
      0.841.29
      (0.12–13.92)
       Alle.: A vs. C0.441.12
      (0.84–1.51)
      0.360.90
      (0.73–1.12)
      0.611.07
      (0.83–1.38)
      0.871.06
      (0.52–2.19)
      Cdx2 (rs11568820)
       Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.130.82
      (0.64–1.06)
      0.770.97
      (0.81–1.17)
      0.761.04
      (0.83–1.29)
      0.350.74
      (0.40–1.38)
       Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.090.72
      (0.50–1.05)
      0.300.86
      (0.65–1.14)
      0.701.07
      (0.77–1.49)
      0.740.85
      (0.34–2.14)
       Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.570.88
      (0.56–1.37)
      0.481.12
      (0.82–1.55)
      0.991.00
      (0.68–1.48)
      0.200.38
      (0.09–1.65)
       Hom.: TT vs. CC0.330.61
      (0.23–1.64)
      0.231.49
      (0.77–2.88)
      0.581.26
      (0.56–2.84)
      0.340.33
      (0.04–3.16)
       Alle.: T vs. C0.100.80
      (0.62–1.04)
      0.810.98
      (0.81–1.18)
      0.700.96
      (0.76–1.20)
      0.270.70
      (0.37–1.33)
      Fok1 (rs2228570)
       Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.541.08
      (0.84–1.39)
      0.361.09
      (0.91–1.30)
      0.031.28
      (1.03–1.59)
      0.631.16
      (0.64–2.13)
       Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.491.17
      (0.75–1.81)
      0.671.07
      (0.78–1.46)
      0.201.29
      (0.88–1.90)
      0.590.77
      (0.29–2.01)
       Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.691.08
      (0.74–1.59)
      0.281.17
      (0.88–1.54)
      0.031.44
      (1.04–2.00)
      0.191.80
      (0.75–4.30)
       Hom.: BB vs. AA0.270.60
      (0.24–1.48)
      0.761.11
      (0.58–2.11)
      0.022.89
      (1.18–7.05)
      0.951.06
      (0.16–7.25)
       Alle.: B vs. A0.301.15
      (0.89–1.49)
      0.201.13
      (0.94–1.36)
      0.041.27
      (1.01–1.59)
      0.461.27
      (0.67–2.40)
      Taq1 (rs731236)
       Add.: GG vs. AG vs. AA0.100.57
      (0.29–1.11)
      0.360.81
      (0.53–1.24)
      0.810.94
      (0.57–1.55)
      0.860.87
      (0.20–3.83)
       Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.130.59
      (0.30–1.17)
      0.380.82
      (0.53–1.28)
      0.880.96
      (0.57–1.62)
      0.940.95
      (0.20–4.48)
       Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
      0.470.43
      (0.05–4.10)
      0.931.11
      (0.12–10.47)
      1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
       Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
       Alle.: G vs. A0.110.58
      (0.30–1.14)
      0.310.80
      (0.52–1.23)
      0.720.91
      (0.55–1.51)
      0.880.89
      (0.19–4.07)
        Note. Abbreviations: Add.: additive model; Alle.: allelic model; B: degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI: confidence interval; Dom.: dominant model; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom.: homozygous model; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA: not available; OR: odds ratio; Rec.: recessive model; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; VDR: vitamin D receptor gene.

      Table S7.  Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult females with adjustment for age, body mass index, dietary 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and the sunshine time per week

      Gene modelsTG ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/LTC ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/LLDLC ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
      POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
      Apa1 (rs7975232)
       Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.471.11
      (0.84–1.47)
      0.480.93
      (0.76–1.14)
      0.381.12
      (0.87–1.43)
      0.931.03
      (0.52–2.04)
       Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.591.10
      (0.77–1.59)
      0.350.88
      (0.67–1.15)
      0.591.09
      (0.79–1.50)
      0.871.08
      (0.44–2.64)
       Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.841.06
      (0.59–1.92)
      0.880.97
      (0.63–1.49)
      0.331.29
      (0.78–2.12)
      0.991.01
      (0.23–4.45)
       Hom.: AA vs. CC0.160.21
      (0.03–1.86)
      0.521.35
      (0.54–3.34)
      0.162.09
      (0.75–5.81)
      0.711.63
      (0.13–20.27)
       Alle.: A vs. C0.451.12
      (0.83–1.51)
      0.380.91
      (0.73–1.13)
      0.541.08
      (0.84–1.40)
      0.791.11
      (0.53–2.33)
      Cdx2 (rs11568820)
       Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.150.83
      (0.64–1.07)
      0.770.97
      (0.81–1.17)
      0.791.03
      (0.83–1.29)
      0.380.76
      (0.40–1.42)
       Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.100.73
      (0.50–1.06)
      0.300.86
      (0.65–1.14)
      0.701.07
      (0.76–1.49)
      0.790.88
      (0.35–2.23)
       Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.650.90
      (0.57–1.41)
      0.491.12
      (0.81–1.55)
      0.970.99
      (0.67–1.46)
      0.200.38
      (0.09–1.68)
       Hom.: TT vs. CC0.420.66
      (0.23–1.85)
      0.271.45
      (0.75–2.82)
      0.511.32
      (0.58–3.02)
      0.270.28
      (0.03–2.71)
       Alle.: T vs. C0.110.81
      (0.62–1.05)
      0.981.00
      (0.83–1.21)
      0.790.97
      (0.77–1.22)
      0.450.77
      (0.40–1.50)
      Fok1 (rs2228570)
       Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.571.08
      (0.84–1.39)
      0.351.09
      (0.91–1.31)
      0.031.28
      (1.03–1.59)
      0.681.13
      (0.62–2.07)
       Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.511.16
      (0.75–1.80)
      0.641.08
      (0.79–1.47)
      0.181.31
      (0.89–1.92)
      0.570.76
      (0.29–1.99)
       Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.701.08
      (0.73–1.59)
      0.291.16
      (0.88–1.54)
      0.031.45
      (1.04–2.00)
      0.221.72
      (0.72–4.14)
       Hom.: BB vs. AA0.220.55
      (0.21–1.44)
      0.681.15
      (0.60–2.20)
      0.022.86
      (1.16–7.08)
      0.981.03
      (0.14–7.63)
       Alle.: B vs. A0.301.15
      (0.88–1.49)
      0.271.11
      (0.92–1.34)
      0.051.26
      (1.00–1.58)
      0.371.36
      (0.70–2.65)
      Taq1 (rs731236)
       Add.: GG vs. AG vs. AA0.080.55
      (0.28–1.08)
      0.350.82
      (0.54–1.25)
      0.850.95
      (0.58–1.58)
      0.870.89
      (0.20–3.87)
       Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.110.57
      (0.28–1.13)
      0.410.83
      (0.53–1.29)
      0.940.98
      (0.58–1.66)
      0.980.98
      (0.21–4.64)
       Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
      0.450.42
      (0.04–3.99)
      0.961.06
      (0.11–10.06)
      1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
       Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
       Alle.: G vs. A0.120.59
      (0.30–1.15)
      0.270.79
      (0.51–1.21)
      0.750.92
      (0.56–1.53)
      0.860.87
      (0.19–4.09)
        Note. Abbreviations: Add., additive model; Alle., allelic model; B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI, confidential interval; Dom., dominant model; HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom., homozygous model; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA, not available; OR, odds ratio; Rec., recessive model; SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; VDR, vitamin D receptor gene.

      Table S8.  Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult males with adjustment for age, body mass index, dietary 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and the sunshine time per week

      Gene modelsTG
      ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/L
      TC
      ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/L
      LDLC
      ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/L
      HDLC
      < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
      POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
      Apa1 (rs7975232)
       Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.551.08
      (0.85–1.37)
      0.950.99
      (0.79–1.24)
      0.920.99
      (0.75–1.30)
      0.111.72
      (0.88–3.35)
       Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.491.12
      (0.82–1.51)
      0.460.90
      (0.68–1.19)
      0.740.94
      (0.67–1.34)
      0.132.11
      (0.81–5.51)
       Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.771.08
      (0.64–1.83)
      0.231.35
      (0.83–2.20)
      0.821.07
      (0.58–1.97)
      0.511.54
      (0.43–5.53)
       Hom.: AA vs. CC0.741.18
      (0.45–3.11)
      0.251.72
      (0.69–4.29)
      0.561.36
      (0.49–3.82)
      0.313.00
      (0.37–24.68)
       Alle.: A vs. C0.471.10
      (0.86–1.41)
      0.661.05
      (0.84–1.33)
      0.830.97
      (0.73–1.29)
      0.351.39
      (0.70–2.77)
      Cdx2 (rs11568820)
       Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.650.96
      (0.78–1.17)
      0.090.85
      (0.71–1.03)
      0.460.92
      (0.73–1.16)
      0.121.62
      (0.89–2.95)
       Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.880.98
      (0.72–1.33)
      0.140.81
      (0.61–1.07)
      0.640.92
      (0.65–1.30)
      0.571.32
      (0.50–3.50)
       Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.570.90
      (0.62–1.30)
      0.200.80
      (0.57–1.13)
      0.400.83
      (0.54–1.28)
      0.042.68
      (1.06–6.75)
       Hom.: TT vs. CC0.062.25
      (0.97–5.23)
      0.820.92
      (0.42–1.99)
      0.741.17
      (0.47–2.95)
      0.194.84
      (0.46–51.14)
       Alle.: T vs C0.620.95
      (0.76–1.18)
      0.140.86
      (0.70–1.05)
      0.450.91
      (0.71–1.17)
      0.301.42
      (0.73–2.73)
      Fok1 (rs2228570)
       Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.500.93
      (0.75–1.15)
      0.080.84
      (0.69–1.02)
      0.771.04
      (0.81–1.33)
      0.022.26
      (1.12–4.56)
       Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.750.94
      (0.65–1.36)
      0.300.84
      (0.59–1.17)
      0.631.11
      (0.72–1.72)
      0.232.48
      (0.57–10.90)
       Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.470.89
      (0.64–1.23)
      0.080.76
      (0.56–1.03)
      0.970.99
      (0.68–1.45)
      0.032.75
      (1.12–6.74)
       Hom.: BB vs. AA0.891.06
      (0.48–2.35)
      0.801.11
      (0.52–2.35)
      0.821.11
      (0.45–2.73)
      0.820.79
      (0.10–6.34)
       Alle.: B vs. A0.500.93
      (0.75–1.15)
      0.190.87
      (0.71–1.07)
      0.531.08
      (0.84–1.39)
      0.091.85
      (0.91–3.76)
      Taq1 (rs731236)
       Add.: GG vs AG vs. AA0.671.12
      (0.67–1.86)
      0.701.10
      (0.68–1.76)
      0.300.72
      (0.38–1.35)
      0.640.69
      (0.15–3.19)
       Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.691.12
      (0.65–1.91)
      0.751.09
      (0.66–1.79)
      0.420.76
      (0.40–1.47)
      0.850.86
      (0.19–3.97)
       Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA0.831.27
      (0.15–11.06)
      0.472.36
      (0.23–24.37)
      1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
      1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
       Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
       Alle.: G vs. A0.651.13
      (0.67–1.89)
      0.681.11
      (0.68–1.79)
      0.310.72
      (0.38–1.37)
      0.710.75
      (0.17–3.37)
        Note. Abbreviations: Add., additive model; Alle., allelic model; B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI, confidential interval; Dom., dominant model; HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom., homozygous model; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA, not available; OR, odds ratio; Rec., recessive model; SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; VDR, vitamin D receptor gene.

      Table 3 displays the logistic regression analyses of the relationships between the lipids and the SNPs of VDR in the male participants. Between the subgroups of HDLC (< 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L), the data presented significance (P < 0.05) in the recessive model of Cdx2 (TT vs. CT + CC, P = 0.04, OR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.08–6.80) and the additive (BB vs. AB vs. AA, P = 0.02, OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.12–4.52) and recessive (BB vs. AB + AA, P = 0.02, OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.11–6.70) models of Fok1, while other models of the genotype showed no significance (P ≥ 0.05). Differences were not found for Apa1 and Taq1 between the subgroups defined by any of the lipid profiles (P ≥ 0.05).

      Table 3.  Logistic regression analyses of lipids with SNPs of VDR in adult males with adjustment for age and body mass index

      Gene modelsTG ≥ 1.7 vs. < 1.7 mmol/LTC ≥ 5.2 vs. < 5.2 mmol/LLDLC ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
      POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
      Apa1 (rs7975232)
       Add.: AA vs. AC vs. CC0.651.06
      (0.83–1.34)
      0.890.98
      (0.79–1.23)
      0.860.98
      (0.74–1.29)
      0.121.71
      (0.88–3.31)
       Dom.: AA + AC vs. CC0.541.10
      (0.81–1.49)
      0.430.89
      (0.67–1.18)
      0.710.94
      (0.66–1.33)
      0.132.10
      (0.80–5.48)
       Rec.: AA vs. AC + CC0.901.04
      (0.62–1.74)
      0.271.32
      (0.81–2.15)
      0.881.05
      (0.57–1.92)
      0.501.55
      (0.43–5.53)
       Hom.: AA vs. CC0.851.09
      (0.44–2.72)
      0.261.67
      (0.68–4.09)
      0.551.36
      (0.50–3.73)
      0.283.17
      (0.40–25.19)
       Alle.: A vs. C0.491.09
      (0.85–1.40)
      0.661.05
      (0.84–1.33)
      0.860.98
      (0.73–1.30)
      0.341.40
      (0.70–2.78)
      Cdx2 (rs11568820)
       Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC0.660.96
      (0.78–1.17)
      0.090.85
      (0.71–1.03)
      0.460.92
      (0.73–1.16)
      0.101.65
      (0.91–3.00)
       Dom.: TT + CT vs. CC0.900.98
      (0.72–1.33)
      0.140.81
      (0.61–1.07)
      0.650.92
      (0.65–1.31)
      0.541.36
      (0.51–3.59)
       Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC0.560.90
      (0.62–1.29)
      0.200.80
      (0.57–1.13)
      0.400.83
      (0.54–1.28)
      0.042.70
      (1.08–6.80)
       Hom.: TT vs. CC0.121.87
      (0.85–4.13)
      0.710.87
      (0.40–1.86)
      0.901.06
      (0.43–2.61)
      0.194.71
      (0.46–48.16)
       Alle.: T vs. C0.670.95
      (0.77–1.18)
      0.150.86
      (0.71–1.06)
      0.450.91
      (0.71–1.17)
      0.281.43
      (0.74–2.76)
      Fok1 (rs2228570)
       Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA0.480.93
      (0.75–1.15)
      0.080.84
      (0.68–1.02)
      0.801.03
      (0.81–1.32)
      0.022.25
      (1.12–4.52)
       Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA0.800.96
      (0.66–1.37)
      0.320.84
      (0.60–1.18)
      0.601.12
      (0.73–1.73)
      0.222.53
      (0.58–11.06)
       Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA0.430.88
      (0.63–1.21)
      0.070.75
      (0.56–1.02)
      0.910.98
      (0.67–1.43)
      0.032.73
      (1.11–6.70)
       Hom.: BB vs. AA0.831.09
      (0.51–2.34)
      0.821.09
      (0.52–2.29)
      0.791.13
      (0.46–2.74)
      0.780.75
      (0.10–5.83)
       Alle.: B vs. A0.450.92
      (0.74–1.14)
      0.160.87
      (0.71–1.06)
      0.581.07
      (0.84–1.38)
      0.101.82
      (0.90–3.70)
      Taq1 (rs731236)
       Add.: GG vs. AG vs. AA0.641.13
      (0.68–1.85)
      0.691.10
      (0.69–1.76)
      0.320.73
      (0.39–1.37)
      0.650.71
      (0.15–3.24)
       Dom.: GG + AG vs. AA0.691.12
      (0.66–1.90)
      0.741.09
      (0.66–1.79)
      0.440.77
      (0.40–1.48)
      0.840.85
      (0.19–3.94)
       Rec.: GG vs. AG + AA0.791.34
      (0.16–11.27)
      0.462.42
      (0.24–24.75)
      1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
      1.000.00
      (0.00–NA)
       Hom.: GG vs. AANANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
      NANA
      (NA–NA)
       Alle.: G vs. A0.621.14
      (0.68–1.90)
      0.661.11
      (0.69–1.80)
      0.320.72
      (0.38–1.37)
      0.700.74
      (0.17–3.34)
        Note. Abbreviations: Add.: additive model; Alle.: allelic model; B: degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI: confidence interval; Dom.: dominant model; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Hom.: homozygous model; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NA: not available; OR, odds ratio; Rec.: recessive model; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; VDR: vitamin D receptor gene.
    • No differences were found in the comparison of 25OHD concentrations across genotype models of VDR gene polymorphisms in both genders (see Supplementary Table S9, available in www.besjournal.com). When the plasma 25OHD concentrations in subjects with abnormal and normal lipid profiles were compared, it was shown that women with low HDLC had higher 25OHD while men with high TG had lower 25OHD than the subjects with normal lipid parameters (P < 0.05, Supplementary Table S10, available in www.besjournal.com).

    • In men, lg TG (β = −0.003, P < 0.001), LDLC (β = −0.003, P = 0.006), and HDLC (β = −0.001, P = 0.025) were inversely associated with the 25OHD concentration while in women, none of the lipid profiles showed a significant correlation with the 25OHD concentration (P ≥ 0.05, Supplementary Table S11, available in www.besjournal.com).

      Table S9.  Comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (nmol/L) across genotype models of VDR gene polymorphisms in adult males and females

      GenotypeFemaleMale
      comparisonnMedianIQRP valuenMedianIQRP value
      Apa1 (rs7975232)
       Add: AA vs. AC vs. CC
        CC56158.97[49.68–69.18]0.3543963.18[53.75–72.59]0.83
        AC45358.75[49.16–68.63]34762.33[52.65–73.59]
        AA11057.04[48.40–65.71]7760.91[52.44–73.32]
       Dom: AC + AA vs. CC
        AC + AA56358.53[49.01–68.18]0.4742462.12[52.66–73.49]0.54
        CC56158.97[49.68–69.18]43963.18[53.75–72.59]
       Rec: AA vs. AC + CC
        AA11057.04[48.40–65.71]0.167760.91[52.44–73.32]0.83
        AC + CC1,01458.86[49.50–68.82]78662.63[53.24–72.72]
       Hom: AA vs. CC
        AA11057.04[48.40–65.71]0.157760.91[52.44–73.32]0.74
        CC56158.97[49.68–69.18]43963.18[53.75–72.59]
       Alle: A vs. C
        A67358.30[48.86–67.20]0.2350162.04[52.66–73.38]0.57
        C1,57558.90[49.54–68.88]1,22562.85[53.38–72.66]
      Cdx2 (rs11568820)
       Add.: TT vs. CT vs. CC
        CC33459.17[50.94–68.68]0.2030461.79[53.30–72.53]0.69
        CT57659.08[48.96–69.29]39063.11[53.50–72.93]
        TT21456.48[48.30–67.03]16961.65[51.85–72.31]
       Dom.: CT + TT vs. CC
        CT + TT79058.35[48.80–68.56]0.4155962.76[53.14–72.88]0.72
        CC33459.17[50.94–68.68]30461.79[53.30–72.53]
       Rec.: TT vs. CT + CC
        TT21456.48[48.30–67.03]0.0816961.65[51.85–72.31]0.56
        CT + CC91059.15[49.50–69.12]69462.83[53.46–72.73]
       Hom.: TT vs. CC
        TT21456.48[48.30–67.03]0.0816961.65[51.85–72.31]0.81
        CC33459.17[50.94–68.68]30461.79[53.30–72.53]
       Alle: T vs. C
        T1,00458.00[48.65–68.27]0.1372862.59[52.78–72.82]0.93
        C1,24459.15[49.95–68.88]99862.61[53.36–72.66]
      Fok1 (rs2228570)
       Add.: BB vs. AB vs. AA
        AA24357.56[48.62–69.02]0.8317263.52[54.12–73.35]0.47
        AB56158.75[49.14–69.11]45762.44[53.50–72.16]
        BB32059.04[49.98–67.16]23461.49[51.87–72.67]
       Dom.: BB + AB vs. AA
        BB + AB88158.87[49.43–68.55]0.5469162.30[53.17–72.33]0.40
        AA24357.56[48.62–69.02]17263.52[54.12–73.35]
       Rec.: BB vs. AB + AA
        BB32059.04[49.98–67.16]0.8723461.49[51.87–72.67]0.27
        AB + AA80458.37[49.03–69.07]62962.80[53.64–72.82]
       Hom.: BB vs. AA
        BB32059.04[49.98–67.16]0.6223461.49[51.87–72.67]0.24
        AA24357.56[48.62–69.02]17263.52[54.12–73.35]
       Alle.: B vs. A
        B1,20158.92[49.55–68.41]0.6592562.16[52.72–72.54]0.24
        A1,04758.32[49.01–69.02]80162.99[53.89–72.93]
      Taq1 (rs731236)
       Add.: GG vs AG vs. AA
        AA1,00558.53[49.43–68.66]0.9278762.37[53.24–72.59]0.50
        AG11460.05[48.85–67.77]7264.27[52.80–75.16]
        GG553.88[37.14–74.36]467.28[66.31–71.96]
       Dom.: AG + GG vs. AA
        AG + GG11959.98[48.95–67.63]0.917664.98[53.28–74.37]0.46
        AA1,00558.53[49.43–68.66]78762.37[53.24–72.59]
       Rec.: GG vs AG + AA
        GG553.88[37.14–74.36]0.68467.28[66.31–71.96]0.30
        AG + AA1,11958.73[49.36–68.59]85962.56[53.20–72.72]
       Hom.: GG vs. AA
        GG553.88[37.14–74.36]0.68467.28[66.31–71.96]0.29
        AA1,00558.53[49.43–68.66]78762.37[53.24–72.59]
       Alle.: G vs. A
        G12459.97[49.01–67.61]0.848065.45[53.57–73.86]0.34
        A2,12458.64[49.41–68.64]1,64662.49[53.23–72.66]
        Note. Abbreviations: Add., additive model; Alle., allelic model; B, degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; Dom., dominant model; Hom., homozygous model; IQR, interquartile range; Rec., recessive model; VDR, vitamin D receptor gene.
    • According to the logistic regression results (see Tables 2 and 3) and the simple linear regression results (see Supplementary Table S11), VD and VDR SNPs had some parameters that were related to the results of dyslipidemia. Therefore, we further explored whether VD and VDR SNPs were synergistic or antagonistic to the results of dyslipidemia. The results (see Table 4) further showed that in men, the combined effect of VD, Fok1 BB (P = 0.02, OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.06), and Cdx2 TT (P = 0.02, OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.06) synergistically led to a decrease in HDLC levels while in women, there was no significant difference in the interaction between VD and Fok1 or Cdx2 (OR < 1 and P ≥ 0.05) on the lipid profiles.

      Table 4.  Interactions between plasma 25OHD concentrations and SNPs of VDR, Cdx2 (rs11568820) and Fok1 (rs2228570) on the occurrence of dyslipidemia

      GenotypeFemaleMale
      LDLC, ≥ 3.4 vs. < 3.4 mmol/LHDLC, < 1.0 vs. ≥ 1.0 mmol/L
      POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)
      Cdx2
       CC0.111.02 (1.00–1.05)
       CT0.281.02 (0.99–1.05)
       TT0.021.03 (1.01–1.06)
      Fok1
       AA0.080.99 (0.98–1.00)0.461.01 (0.98–1.05)
       AB0.130.99 (0.98–1.00)0.171.02 (0.99–1.05)
       BB0.581.00 (0.99–1.01)0.021.03 (1.01–1.06)
        Note. Abbreviations: 25OHD: 25-hydroxyvitamin D; B: degenerate base standing for C, G, and T; CI: confidence interval; HDLC: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; OR: odds ratio; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; TG: triglyceride; –: interaction analyses were not conducted due to negative findings in the logistic regression analyses for the genotypes.
    • Cellular and animal studies have demonstrated that both VD and VDR play important roles in adipocyte differentiation[25, 26]. VD activates VDR to inhibit the differentiation of pre-adipocytes into mature adipocytes in vitro at an early stage[27, 28], and gene expression data showed that the abundance of VDR mRNA was changed in the process of adipocyte differentiation[29-31]. In Vdr knockout mice, VD could not block the expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) and the corresponding adipocyte differentiation, which indicated that VDR was a key mediator of VD in adipocyte differentiation[27, 28]. The TC level of Vdr knockout mice was more than 20% higher than that of wild-type mice[32]. Therefore, the existence of VDR is very important for the healthy regulation of serum lipid profiles, and it is speculated that VDR has the function of lowering TC levels. Knockout of Vdr in macrophages will cause insulin resistance and promote the movement of cholesterol, accelerating atherosclerosis in mice[33]. The above all suggest that the perfect function of VDR has a positive effect on the normal lipid metabolism process.

      As SNPs of a gene may impact gene expression, as well as the structure and function of the encoded protein and the consequent phenotypes, VDR polymorphisms have been found to modify the risk of metabolic diseases[34]. Among the SNPs of VDR, Fok1 is the most widely studied. Some studies have found that the AA (complementary to TT, i.e., ff) carriers of Fok1 had higher TC in Arab adults[35], lower HDLC and higher TG in Moroccans[36], and higher LDLC in Chinese individuals[37]. Moreover, Fok1 A allele carriers had a higher risk of having coronary heart disease, and patients with a BB (or FF, e.g., GG) genotype had a higher level of HDLC[38]. The genetic benefits of AA (ff) or risk of BB (FF) or their alleles were also reported for other lipid parameters, or even the same lipid parameters, in different studies. In adult male Poles, the AA (ff) genotype carriers had lower fasting insulin and higher HDLC[39]. Similarly, in the men in our study, the AA (ff) genotype carriers had higher HDLC. In the Han Chinese population, the risk of dyslipidemia was associated with the BB (e.g., CC) genotype in the elderly male T2D patients of Beijing[40] and with the B (e.g., C) allele in a community-based population in Nanjing[37]. Largely consistent with these findings, we found that the B allele was positively associated with LDLC in women and that the BB genotype was negatively associated with HDLC in men.

      The other three VDR SNPs, Cdx2, Apa1, and Taq1, were also reported to be associated with lipid profiles. For example, regarding the Cdx2 polymorphism of VDR in a Lebanese student cohort, CC (GG) or CT (AG) carriers of both genders had higher LDLC than the TT (AA) carriers[41]. Higher TC and LDLC levels were also observed in the Apa1 A allele (T or A) (Russian)[42] and Apa1 CA (GT) (Chinese)[43] carriers than in the CC (GG) carriers. The VDR Taq1 AA (TT) genotype was associated with increased TG and HDLC levels compared to the genotypes of GG (CC) and GA (CT) in obese Greek subjects[44]. However, Taq1 GA and GG genotypes were associated with higher TC and LDLC levels in T2D patients (Arab)[45], and the GA genotype exhibited a higher TC concentration compared with the AA genotypes (Arab)[46]. However, Karonova and colleagues[42] noted that no difference was found regarding the association between Taq1 and any lipid parameter. These findings suggested that the associations between VDR SNPs and the individual lipid parameters differed among various races or health conditions.

      In general, gender differences and sexual dimorphism also affect the genotype and phenotype association. Studies from Lebanon, Poland, and Brazil concluded that men with Fok1 B (F) had lower HDLC and higher TG levels[39, 41, 47] while female students with the A allele (f) had higher TC and LDLC[41]. By analyzing genotypic frequencies of the four VDR SNPs between the DL and ND groups in our study, we found that Fok1 showed significant differences between the two groups. Adjusting for age and BMI, we found that VDR Fok1 B (C, G, and T) alleles were related to the occurrence of high LDLC in the female group and low HDLC in the male group. Moreover, VDR Cdx2 T was related to low HDLC in the male group. Gender-specific differences between VDR SNPs and various cardiovascular risk factors and adiponectin[41] also suggest that VDR SNPs may be a predictor of cardiovascular diseases. Thus, based on our findings, Fok1 B in both sexes and Cdx2 T in men may serve as predictors for dyslipidemia and related diseases, including cardiovascular diseases.

      Though it has been widely acknowledged that plasma or serum 25OHD levels are inversely correlated with TG, TC, and/or LDLC[14, 48-53], the relationship between VD and HDLC is complicated[3]. We previously found that oral supplementation of VD (50,000 IU/week for eight weeks) induced a decrease in HDLC in male adults[54]. In interpreting the discrepancy in gender, age, and physiological status that might be involved, we found that sunlight exposure also seemed to affect the association between 25OHD and HDLC. Specifically, at lower sunlight exposure (< 1 h/d), a positive relationship was observed, while at higher sunlight exposure (> 2 h/d), 25OHD was negatively associated with HDLC[55]. In our present study, the men in the DL group had a lower level of VD than the men in the ND group, and plasma 25OHD was inversely associated with lg TG, LDLC, and HDLC in men. There was no significant difference in the distribution of VD concentration among the various VDR SNPs genotypes, but we noticed that the women in the DL group were much older than the women in the other groups, which may affect the VD levels among the groups. Other possible reasons, such as the population selection, dietary VD, time spent outdoors for sun exposure, menopause, etc., may also have complicated the results.

      In addition, VDR polymorphisms may affect the responses of metabolic parameters to VD supplementation. After VD supplementation, Apa1 CC (aa) as compared to Apa1 AA (AA) or Cdx2 TT (AA) as compared to Cdx2 CC (GG) was associated with a greater decrease in plasma LDLC[56]. A previous study conducted in New Zealand found that after VD supplementation in women with VD deficiency, the VDR SNP genotypes of Apa1 AA (AA) and Taq1 GG (tt) were predicted to show greater improvement in insulin resistance[57]. Thus, it was easy to understand that different genotypes of VDR may have an impact on VD levels and biochemical metabolic indicators[58-60]. For example, the Fok1 AA (TT, i.e., ff) genotype was associated with lower 25OHD levels and higher LDLC levels in the aforementioned Chinese population[37]. Nevertheless, we failed to find such differences in the plasma 25OHD concentration between the genotypes for each of the four SNPs in our examination center-based population. According to the logistic regression and simple linear regression results, some parameters of VD and VDR SNPs were related to results of dyslipidemia. Therefore, we further explored whether VD and VDR SNPs were synergistic or antagonistic to the results of dyslipidemia. The results showed that in men, the combined effect of VD and Fok1 BB or Cdx2 TT did not optimize HDLC parameters but synergistically decreased HDLC levels, which tend to be unhealthy. This suggests that, in men, in particular those who carry the Fok1 BB or Cdx2 TT genotypes, supplementation of VD may not help improve their low-HDLC dyslipidemia; however, further studies are needed to confirm this.

      Aside from the inconsistent results of the epidemiological evidence due to complicated confounders existing in real life, the fundamental biological aspects of some SNPs of VDR have been interpreted. The Fok1 restriction enzyme site as GGATGN(9)^ at the 5'-end of VDR in exon 2 has two ATG triplets that can serve as the initial codon for the long or short isoforms of the VDR protein, respectively. The impaired nuclear uptake of 1,25(OH)2D in fibroblasts was related to the conversion of the A (complementary to T in the first ATG triplet of VDR) allele to B (e.g., C) for the Fok1 polymorphism[61], which initiated the translation from the downstream ATG for the smaller VDR protein (49.5 kD), three amino acid residues shorter than the longer form. Further analysis of the VDR molecular model found that the Fok1 B-allele changed the structure and stability of VDR and its binding energy with its ligand[37] but is more effective in activating the VD target genes[62]. However, the expression and migration efficiency of the two VDR isoforms have not yet been determined. The Cdx2 polymorphism is located in the promoter region of the VDR gene, and its minor allele T (or A on its complementary strand) resulted in a higher transcriptional activity of VDR[63]. But these mechanisms remain to be studied for the polymorphisms of Apa1 located in the 8th intron and Taq1 in the 9th exon, causing a nonsense variation.

    • This study is the first to propose that different genotypes of VDR SNPs affect serum lipid profiles with gender differences. This can be useful for improving preventive strategies for dyslipidemia and related diseases in populations with a specific gender and genetic makeup. However, attention should be paid to our findings considering at least the following aspects: 1) the participants were recruited from a health examination center where the dyslipidemia prevalence was lower than that indicated in an epidemiological study of the entire Shenzhen population (27% vs. 34.6%), and larger population and multi-center studies are needed to further confirm the relationship between VDR SNPs and different lipid parameters; 2) identification and quantification of confounding factors, especially sex, age, and lifestyle factors, need more comprehensive consideration in interpreting the relationship between dyslipidemia and VDR polymorphisms, as well as serum VD levels.

    • Cdx2, Fok1 polymorphisms of VDR were sex-differentially associated with lipid profiles in Han Chinese adults. In women, Fok1 B was positively correlated with LDLC, indicating that Fok1 B is a risk factor of high-LDLC-dyslipidemia, while in men, Cdx2 T and Fok1 B were negatively correlated with HDLC, suggesting that Cdx2 T and Fok1 B are risk factors of low-HDLC-dyslipidemia. In men, the VD status interacted with Cdx2 TT and Fok1 BB in association with low-HDLC levels.

    • None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

      Table S5.  Genetic model comparison of Apa1 (rs7975232) in vitamin D receptor gene between dyslipidemia (DL) and non-dyslipidemia (ND) adults

      Gene
      models
      Additive modelDominant modelRecessive modelHomozygous modelAllelic model
      AAACCCAA + ACCCAAAC + CCAACCAC
      DL
       n482212662692664848748266317753
       %9.041.349.750.349.79.091.015.384.729.670.4
      ND
       n1395797347187341391,3131397348572,047
       %9.539.950.649.450.69.690.415.984.129.570.5
      Total
       n1878001,0009871,0001871,8001871,0001,1742,800
       %9.440.350.349.750.39.490.615.884.229.570.5
       χ20.400.110.170.100.01
       P value0.820.740.680.790.94

      Table S10.  Comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (nmol/L) in abnormal and normal lipid groups of adult males and females

      GenotypeFemaleMale
      comparisonnMedianIQRP valuenMedianIQRP value
      TG
       ≥ 2.3 mmol/L9257.79[49.43–65.74]0.4021359.58[49.47–69.60]< 0.01
       < 2.3 mmol/L1,03258.80[49.25–68.85]65063.43[54.29–73.70]
      TC
       ≥ 6.2 mmol/L15159.19[47.87–72.64]0.6811159.18[49.73–71.13]0.09
       < 6.2 mmol/L97358.56[49.55–68.31]75262.92[53.42–72.93]
      LDLC
       ≥ 4.1 mmol/L2956.70[45.80–66.12]0.521755.45[45.07–74.43]0.20
       < 4.1 mmol/L1,09558.78[49.41–68.66]84662.65[53.27–72.72]
      HDLC
       < 1.0 mmol/L2267.80[59.52–78.05]< 0.012069.35[57.83–83.61]0.11
       ≥ 1.0 mmol/L1,10258.52[49.13–68.44]84362.57[53.19–72.59]
        Note. Abbreviations: HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; IQR, interquartile range; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride.

      Table S11.  Simple linear regressions between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and lipid profiles

      Lipid profilesFemaleMale
      βP valueβP value
      lg TG< 0.0010.902− 0.003< 0.001
      TC0.0010.647− 0.0030.088
      LDLC− 0.0010.584− 0.0030.006
      HDLC< 0.0010.461− 0.0010.025
        Note. Abbreviations: HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride.
参考文献 (63)
补充材料:
21077Supplementary Materials.pdf

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回