help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Published ahead of print on June 7, 2004, doi:10.1164/rccm.200312-1763OC
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
200312-1763OCv1
170/4/388    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by He, J.-Q.
Right arrow Articles by Sandford, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by He, J.-Q.
Right arrow Articles by Sandford, A. J.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 170. pp. 388-394, (2004)
© 2004 American Thoracic Society

Original Article

Glutathione S-Transferase Variants and Their Interaction with Smoking on Lung Function

Jian-Qing He, John E. Connett, Nicholas R. Anthonisen, Peter D. Paré and Andrew J. Sandford

The James Hogg iCAPTURE Centre for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; and Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Andrew J. Sandford, Ph.D., UBC James Hogg iCAPTURE Centre for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6 Canada. E-mail: asandford{at}mrl.ubc.ca


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We studied glutathione S-transferase (GST) polymorphisms in 1,098 whites with the lowest (n = 544, FEV1 % predicted mean ± SEM = 62.6 ± 0.1) and the highest (n = 554, FEV1 % predicted mean ± SEM = 91.8 ± 0.1) lung function at the beginning of the Lung Health Study. Homozygosity for GSTP1 105Val was significantly more frequent in the low- than in the high-function group (13.2 vs. 9.3%) (odds ratio = 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11–2.61, p = 0.016), after adjustment for confounding variables. Subjects with 105Val homozygotes had higher rates of lung function decline in the high-function group (p = 0.017). The frequencies of GSTM1, GSTT1 null genotypes were similar between the high- and low-function groups, but subjects with the GSTT1 null genotype had a faster decline of lung function in the low-function group (p = 0.032). In addition, there was a significant interaction of GSTT1 genotype and pack-years on lung function. When comparing individuals with GSTT1 null genotype with wild type, the adjusted odds ratio was 3.49 (95% CI, 1.48–8.39, p = 0.005) in mild smokers (<= 25 pack years). We conclude that GST genotypes are risk factors for rapid decline or low lung function in smokers with mild to moderate airflow obstruction.

Key Words: cigarette smoking • FEV1 • gene–environment interaction • genetic polymorphism • glutathione S-transferase

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is defined by the presence of decreased maximal expiratory flow, and the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease has defined categories of severity that are largely based on the FEV1 expressed as a percentage of predicted values. Cigarette smoking is the most important environmental factor influencing lung function. Although there is a dose–response relationship between FEV1 and the extent of cigarette smoking (pack-years and duration of smoking) (1, 2), smoking history accounts for only approximately 15% of the variation in lung function (3). In addition, approximately 5% of subjects with COPD are nonsmokers (4). A number of family and twin studies have documented familial aggregation of FEV1 even after adjustment for cigarette smoking (5, 6). These observations suggest that genetic factors contribute to lung function through their effect on lung development and/or by influencing susceptibility to the effects of cigarette smoke. The genetic determinants of FEV1 have received increasing attention (7, 8). However, there have been few studies of gene–smoking interactions other than for the effect of {alpha}1-antitrypsin deficiency alleles on lung function (9).

Oxidative stress, measured as thiobarbituric acid–reactive substances in plasma, has been shown to correlate inversely with FEV1 percent predicted in a population study (10). Other studies have provided supportive evidence of a role for reactive oxygen species (ROS) released from circulating neutrophils and the development of airflow limitation (11). Antioxidant nutrients have also been associated with preservation of FEV1 (12, 13). The results of all of these studies suggest oxidant/antioxidant imbalance have important consequences for the pathogenesis of COPD.

The glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) are a family of enzymes that protect against oxidative stress by detoxifying various toxic substrates in tobacco smoke. Several GST polymorphisms have been identified. GSTM1, located on chromosome 1p13.3, has three alleles: GSTM1*0 is a null allele while GSTM1*A, and GSTM1*B alleles encode monomers that form active enzymes. Homozygosity for the common GSTM1 null allele results in a complete lack of GSTM1 activity (14). GSTT1, located on chromosome 22q11.2, has a similar common null genotype (15). GSTP1, located on chromosome 11q13, contains a function changing polymorphism: an A->G transition at nucleotide +313 leads to the 105Ile/Val substitution, which has been shown to result in altered catalytic activity (16, 17).

The polymorphisms of GSTM1, T1, and P1 have been associated with cancers of the lung, bladder, breast, and colon (18). The GSTM1 null genotype was reported to be associated with emphysema (19). The GSTP1 105Ile allele has been associated with COPD in the Japanese population (20). However, Yim and colleagues reported that none of the GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 polymorphisms were associated with COPD in a Korean population (21, 22).

We recently reported that decline of lung function in smokers with mild to moderate air flow obstruction was not associated with any of the genotypes for GSTs when analyzed separately, but there was an association between rapid decline of lung function and the presence of the combination of the GSTM1 null, GSTT1 null, and GSTP1 150Ile/Ile genotype (OR = 2.83, p = 0.03) in this population (23). A combination of a family history of COPD with GSTP1 105Ile/Ile genotype was also associated with rapid decline of lung function (OR = 2.20, p = 0.01) (23). In contrast, Gilliland and colleagues showed that homozygosity for the GSTP1 105Val or GSTM1 null alleles was associated with deficits in lung function growth in children (24). To the best of our knowledge, there is no report of GST gene polymorphisms and their interaction with smoking on lung function in adults.

We hypothesized that FEV1 % predicted in smokers with mild to moderate air flow obstruction from the Lung Health Study (LHS) cohort would be influenced by GSTM1, T1, and P1 polymorphisms, and there would be an interaction of these genotypes with cigarette smoking. The LHS, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, was a clinical trial of smoking intervention and bronchodilator treatment on the progression of COPD (25). This dataset provides an excellent opportunity to explore the associations of gene polymorphisms and their interactions with cigarette exposure on FEV1 % predicted. Some of the results of these studies have been previously reported in the form of an abstract (26).


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study Participants
Study subjects were selected from among the participants of the LHS of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. A total of 5,887 smokers aged 35–60 years with spirometric evidence of mild to moderate lung function impairment were recruited from 10 North American medical centers. The lung function was assessed as FEV1 % predicted, that is, FEV1 adjusted for age, height, sex, and race (25).

From this cohort, we have previously selected the 303 and the 324 individuals with the highest and the slowest rate of decline of lung function among continuous smokers during the first 5 years of follow-up (27). In this study, of those who remained, we selected 500 individuals who had the highest postbronchodilator FEV1 % predicted (high lung function group) and 500 individuals who had the lowest postbronchodilator FEV1 % predicted (low lung function group) at the start of the LHS. Arbitrary cut off points of FEV1 % predicted 88.9% or more and 67.0% or less were used for the high and low lung function groups, respectively. Because 153 individuals from our previous study had baseline lung function within one of these categories, they were included in the present study. Thus, a total of 1,153 subjects were eligible, and of these individuals, 48 were either black or of another ethnic group. Of the remaining 1,105 whites, there were 1,098 DNA samples available. There were 544 and 554 individuals in the high and low lung function groups, respectively.

Genotyping
Detection of the GSTM1 and GSTT1 deletions was performed using a multiplex PCR described by Yim and colleagues (21). Detection of the 313A/G (105Ile/Val) polymorphism in the GSTP1 gene was performed by a PCR-RFLP method of Ishii and colleagues (20). Template-free controls and known genotype controls were included in each experiment.

Statistical Analysis
The differences in genotype frequency between the high and low lung function groups were analyzed by logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding factors–cigarette exposure (pack-years), age, sex, and research center. Because it has been argued that airway hyperresponsiveness is either a risk factor predisposing some smokers to develop COPD or an independent outcome of smoking (28), we performed logistic regression analyses using models with or without methacholine responsiveness as a confounding factor. Methacholine responsiveness was expressed as a two-point dose–response slope (29). The associations of genotype with rate of decline of lung function during 5 years of follow-up were analyzed by multiple linear regressions to adjust for potential confounding factors. The associations of genotype with methacholine responsiveness were analyzed by Wilcoxon test because these values were not normally distributed even after different transformations. To examine the interaction of genotype and smoking, interaction terms between genotype and pack-years were entered into the regression models. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was tested using the Arlequin software package (30). The demographic variables in the two groups were compared by chi-square tests for categoric variables and by t test for continuous variables; p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. All tests were performed using the JMP statistics software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) except those specifically mentioned.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Of the 1,098 subjects, we were unsuccessful in obtaining genotypic data on GSTM1 in 1 participant, GSTT1 in 2 participants, and GSTP1 in 29 participants. Therefore, the analyses include 1,097, 1,096, and 1,069 participants for the GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 gene polymorphisms, respectively. There were no significant demographic differences (age, sex, pack-years, and methacholine responsiveness) between those with and without genotypic data in the high lung function group (> 98% participation rate) and the low lung function group (> 95% participation rate).

According to the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease standard (31), all subjects in the high lung function group have mild COPD, and all subjects in the low-function group have moderate COPD. In 153 individuals from our previous genetic association study of rate of lung function decline (23), 22 are fast decliners but are in the high lung function group, and 21 are slow decliners but are in the low-function group. The demographic characteristics for the groups are shown in Table 1 . There were significant differences in several potential confounding factors between high and low lung function groups. Therefore, the associations of genotypes and lung function were analyzed by logistic regression to adjust for those factors.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. The distribution of demographic characteristics for high and low lung function groups

 
The GSTP1 polymorphism was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the study population (p = 0.971). For the GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms, we were unable to determine whether they were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium because heterozygous individuals could not be distinguished from homozygous wild type.

Low lung function was associated with the homozygous GSTP1 105Val genotype when compared with genotypes containing at least one 105Ile allele both before and after adjustment for confounding factors not including methacholine responsiveness (Table 2) . After adjustment, this association was seen under a recessive model and a codominant model with odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, p = 0.017, and OR = 2.01, p = 0.017, respectively (Table 2). However, after adjustment for confounding factors, including methacholine responsiveness, the significance disappeared with p values of 0.088 for both genetic models. No difference in the frequencies of GSTM1 genotypes was observed between low and high lung function groups (Table 2). There was a borderline association of GSTT1 genotype with lung function (OR = 1.32, p = 0.066), but after adjustment for confounding factors including or not including methacholine responsiveness, the association became less significant (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Comparison of genotype frequencies of GSM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 in high and low lung function groups

 
Because the participants in this study were from 10 centers and different centers had different percentages of individuals in the high and low lung function groups, there was a concern that population stratification may be a confounding factor. We compared the allele frequencies of the studied polymorphisms stratified by research center, and there was no significant difference (data not shown). However, there was a significant difference in pack-years among the centers (p < 0.0001). Therefore, smoking or other environmental factors may be the reason that different percentages of participants were grouped into the low lung function group in each center.

He (23) and others (32) have shown that a combination of specific genotypes and a family history of COPD were more strongly associated with rate of decline of lung function than the genetic risk factor alone. In this study, the frequencies of GSTM1 null, GSTT1 null, GSTP1 105Ile/Ile, or 105Val/Val genotypes combined with a family history of COPD were similar in both groups (data not shown).

We evaluated genotype–smoking interaction by entering an interaction term of genotype*pack-years along with the aforementioned confounding factors not including methacholine responsiveness into the regression models. The interaction term between genotype and pack-years was not statistically significant for GSTT1, M1, and P1 polymorphisms (p = 0.23–0.35). However, if methacholine responsiveness was included as a confounding factor in the models, the interaction term of GSTT1*pack-years was of borderline significance (p = 0.058). To examine further the potential interaction of genotype and smoke exposure and to avoid potential misclassification of smoking exposure, we classified smokers into three discrete categories based on criteria from the literature (33, 34): mild (<= 25 pack-years), moderate (25–55 pack-years), and heavy (>= 55 pack-years) smokers. The interaction term between genotype and smoking exposure grouped in this way (pack-years coded as mild, moderate, and heavy in the regression model) was statistically significant for the GSTT1 polymorphism (p = 0.038). The homozygous GSTT1 null genotype was a risk factor for low lung function in mild smokers in both unadjusted analysis (OR = 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78–7.26, p = 0.0002) and adjusted analysis not including methacholine responsiveness as a confounding factor (OR = 3.49, 95% CI = 1.48–8.39, p = 0.005) or that including methacholine responsiveness as a confounding factor (OR = 4.28, 95% CI = 1.71–10.96, p = 0.002) (Center E was excluded from this analysis because the regression model was unstable if this center was included) (Table 3) . No genotype–smoking interactions were observed for GSTM1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms for lung function (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Genotype frequencies and odds ratios of GSTT1 polymorphism for different smoking categories

 
We also evaluated gene–gene interactions among GSTT1, M1, and P1 polymorphisms by entering two-way interaction terms of genotype*genotype or three-way interaction terms of genotype*genotype*genotype along with the aforementioned confounding factors into the regression models; we did not find any interactions among polymorphisms of those genes.

We analyzed the association of genotypes with the rate of decline of lung function during five years of follow-up in the high and low lung function groups separately by multiple linear regression models adjusted for confounding factors such as age, smoking history (pack-years), cigarettes smoked per day during follow-up, and methacholine responsiveness. Subjects with homozygous 105Val had higher rates of lung function decline in the high lung function group but not in the low lung function group (Table 4) . In a codominant model, homozygosity for 105Val was associated with the fastest decline of lung function, whereas homozygosity for 105Ile had the least decline of lung function (p = 0.017). In dominant and recessive model for 105Val, similar associations were found after adjustment for confounding factors (p = 0.022 for both models) (Table 4). There was no difference of the rate of decline of lung function between GSTM1 genotypes. However, there was a significant association of GSTT1 genotype with the rate of decline of lung function in the low lung function group but not in the high lung function group. The GSTT1 null genotype was associated with a faster decline of lung function, with p = 0.032 after adjustment for confounding factors.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4. Comparison of lung function decline (change of prebronchodilator fev1% predicted) by genotypes in high and low lung function groups

 
To test whether the results were consistent with our previous findings (23), we further analyzed the association of decline of lung function with the homozygous GSTP1 105Ile genotype combined with COPD family history: there was no significant difference (Table 4). However, we did find association of decline of lung function with the combined genotype of homozygous GSTP1 105Ile, GSTT1 null, and GSTM1 null in the low lung function group with p = 0.026 (Table 4).

We also evaluated genotype–smoking interaction for the decline of lung function by entering an interaction term of genotype x pack-years (either as continuous or categoric valuables) along with the aforementioned confounding factors into the regression models: no genotype–smoking interaction was found.

Finally, we analyzed the association of methacholine responsiveness with genotypes. We did not find associations between genotypes with methacholine responsiveness in high or low lung function groups; there was also no association after stratification by sex in both groups (data not shown).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The LHS cohort provides an excellent opportunity to explore the effects of gene polymorphisms, gene–gene interactions, and interaction of genotype with cigarette exposure on severity of lung function impairment in smokers with airflow obstruction. First, the lung function measurements in this cohort were carefully standardized and monitored using a high-quality control program to control for multiple factors that were known to increase intraindividual variability of FEV1 and FVC results, and thus, the data were very reliable (35). Second, complete clinical information and longitudinal lung function measurements were obtained during five years of follow-up. Third, a detailed smoking history was obtained using a modified American Thoracic Society Division of Lung Diseases questionnaire (36). Fourth, there was reasonable sample size in each group we studied. We had excellent power to detect an association of a risk allele for low lung function in smokers: 80% power at a significance level of 5% to detect a 1.7-fold or greater increased risk of low lung function for a risk allele/genotype with prevalence of 10% or more given the size of our study.

Previously, we have examined this cohort using the rate of decline of lung function as a phenotype for genetic studies (37). Different environmental factors and genes may contribute to lung function as a percentage of predicted at one point in time. FEV1 increases to a maximal at age 20–25 years, is stable for 5–10 years, and then declines throughout the remainder of adulthood (38–40). Low lung function at the initiation of the LHS could come about because of a low level of maximal lung function (i.e., decreased rate of lung or airway growth during development), an earlier onset of the expected decline in lung function, and/or an accelerated decline of lung function before recruitment into the study. In this study, we used FEV1 % predicted at the start of the LHS as the phenotype because this phenotype incorporates all of these factors.

In the logistic regression models, we used two sets of confounding factors. One set was age, sex, research center, and smoking history, and the second was the aforementioned plus methacholine responsiveness. The rationale was that if airway hyperresponsiveness is an outcome of smoking secondary to smoking-related airway inflammation, airway narrowing, and/or wall thickening (41), it should not be regarded as a confounding factor for FEV1 independent of smoking and should not be corrected for. However, if airway hyperresponsiveness is an independent host risk factor predisposing some smokers to develop COPD (28, 42, 43), it should be regarded as a confounding factor for FEV1 and should be corrected for.

In this study, we found that the homozygous GSTP1 105Val genotype was associated with low lung function both before and after adjustment for confounding factors not including methacholine responsiveness. Gilliland and colleagues recently reported that children who were homozygous GSTP1 105Val had slower lung function growth than children with at least one 105Ile allele (24). There are several possible explanations for the association of the homozygous GSTP1 105Val genotype with low lung function in smokers. First, the GSTP1 105Val and 105Ile isoenzymes differ significantly in their ability to metabolize specific substrates. Although the 150Val isoenzyme is more active than the 150Ile isoenzyme for some substrates (44, 45), the 105Val isoenzyme is threefold less effective when 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene is the substrate (16, 45). Thus, if a substance such as 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene has an influence on lung maturation, individuals with a homozygous GSTP1 105Val genotype will be at risk for low lung function in adulthood. Second, the major GST protein in human lung tissue is GSTP1, and it was shown that GST enzyme activity for 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene was significantly lower in normal human lung tissue in individuals who have the 105Val enzyme (46). Third, Ryberg and colleagues showed that individuals with the GSTP1 105Val/Val genotype had a significantly higher lung DNA adduct level than individuals with GSTP1 105Ile/Ile (47). They reasoned that this could explain the association between GSTP1 150Val/Val and risk of lung cancer (OR = 1.9, p = 0.035) (47). We believe that this also could explain the association between this genotype and low lung function.

Furthermore, our study is different from other genetic association studies of COPD in that the two groups we studied are patients with mild and moderate COPD. Therefore, we are studying the genetic determinants of progression of airflow obstruction rather than genetic determinants of initiation of airflow obstruction in smokers. The genetics of COPD susceptibility and COPD severity may be different, as has been proposed in inflammatory bowel disease (48). Some genes may only contribute to disease susceptibility and some genes may only contribute to disease severity, whereas some genes may contribute to both. It is more important to determine whether polymorphisms are associated with COPD severity because once a subset of patients is identified it may be possible to target more aggressive and effective therapeutic approaches to that group.

The observation that the association of the homozygous GSTP1 105Val genotype with low lung function disappeared after adjusting for confounding factors including methacholine responsiveness suggests that the genotypes may influence lung function through their effect on airway reactivity (49, 50). However, homozygosity for GSTP1 105Val was protective against asthma, and its prevalence significantly decreased with increasing severity of airflow obstruction and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (51), seemingly contradicting this explanation. We did not find any associations of genotypes of GSTP1, GSTT1, and GSTM1 with methacholine responsiveness in the high or low lung function groups. This could be due to the design of this study. Because we were primarily interested in polymorphisms that affect the baseline of lung function, we selected cases and control subjects from those with the highest or lowest baseline of lung function at the beginning of the LHS. The distribution of methacholine responsiveness was not normally distributed even after different transformations in our study subjects, whereas its log transformation was normally distributed in the entire LHS cohort (28), suggesting that the distribution in this study is related to subject selection. Therefore, this could have masked a real association between the GST polymorphisms and methacholine responsiveness. Different design strategies would be required to study associations of polymorphisms with airway responsiveness.

There was a significant interaction of GSTT1 genotype and smoking exposure when confounding factors, including methacholine responsiveness, were entered into the regression models. Cigarette smoking modified the associations between the GSTT1 polymorphism and low lung function: there was significant association of GSTT1 null genotype with low lung function in individuals who had low cigarette smoke exposure, but no such association existed in moderate and heavy smokers. A possible explanation for this interaction could be that in heavy smokers the dose of toxic substrates was so great that it overwhelmed the effects of the GSTT1 null genotype. In milder smokers, the relative deficiency of metabolic activity of the null genotype may be unmasked. In addition, smoking itself reduces GST activity in the lung, and this decrease is likely to be greater in those who smoke more (52). The results of several studies have shown a similar genotype–exposure interaction for environmentally induced cancers: genetic susceptibility is most readily identifiable for those with low or very low exposure to the causative carcinogen (33, 34, 53, 54).

We have previously shown that the GSTP1 105Ile/Ile genotype combined with a family history of COPD was associated with rapid decline of lung function (23). We also demonstrated that the combination of GSTP1 105Ile/Ile with GSTTT1 null and GSTM1 null genotypes was associated with a rapid decline (23). We were unable to replicate the former observation but did replicate the latter, albeit only in the high lung function group. The lack of concordance between the two studies may reflect the different subject selection criteria or different methods of analysis. The previous study group contained individuals at the extremes of the distribution for rate of decline of lung function and therefore may have been enriched for susceptibility genes, making genetic associations with rate of decline easier to find. Furthermore, in our previous study, rate of decline was used as a dichotomized variable, but we were unable to repeat this strategy for these analyses. Thus, the two studies are not directly comparable.

Population stratification could have led to false-positive results in our study. Although we limited our analysis to whites, there could be genetically distinct subgroups in this population because the participants were selected from 10 North American centers, especially because different centers had different percentages of individuals in the low lung function group. However, it is reasonable to assume that the associations we observed were not artifacts from population stratification because the GSTP1 polymorphism in this study was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and the allele frequency of GSTP1 polymorphism was the same as that reported (65–67.5%) in non-Hispanic whites or whites in seven of nine cohorts in the United States and the United Kingdom (17, 24, 46, 55–60). Two of those cohorts had approximately 2,000 subjects (24, 55), and thus, the allele frequency estimates should be accurate. There were only 32 participants in the LHS who identified themselves as "Hispanic white," and therefore, more than 99% of our participants were non-Hispanic whites. The phenomenon of different centers contributing different percentages of individuals to the low lung function group could be explained, at least partly, by the differences in environment factors such as smoking history.

In this report, we demonstrate that the results of association studies could be different depending on which confounding factors were corrected for in the regression models, as reviewed by Vineis and McMichael (61). This illustrates the importance of comprehensive phenotypic data collection to adjust effectively for potential confounding factors in an association study. Similarly, it is important to consider confounding factors when comparing the results of different association studies.

Because of the multiple comparisons that we have made, the associations of GSTP1 with baseline of lung function or rate of decline of lung function would not be significant at the 5% level if corrected for the multiple comparisons. In addition, the association of low lung function with GSTT1 null genotype in the low cigarette exposure group came from a subgroup analysis rather than the primary analysis. Therefore, it is important to regard these data as hypothesis generating rather than as evidence that these polymorphisms are true risk factors for a low baseline lung function and a rapid decline of lung function in smokers with mild to moderate airflow obstruction.

In summary, this is the first report to show interactions between a GSTT1 polymorphism and cigarette smoking in influencing lung function. We demonstrated the GSTT1 null genotype is associated with a higher risk of low lung function in mild smokers and is associated with rapid decline of lung function in low baseline lung function group. We found that homozygosity for GSTP1 105Val was associated with low lung function, and it is also associated with a fast decline of lung function in high baseline lung function group. We conclude that lung function and lung function decline are affected by GST polymorphisms and that there is a significant interaction with cigarette smoking in this cohort of individuals. Clearly, further study of the interaction between GST genotype and cigarette smoking is warranted.


   Acknowledgments
 
The authors thank Kelly Burkett and Jean Shin for consulting in the statistical analysis.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and National Institutes of Heath Grant 5R01HL064068-04 and by contract N01-HR-46002 from the Division of Lung Diseases of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (The Lung Health Study).

Conflict of Interest Statement: J-Q.H. does not have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript; J.E.C. does not have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript; N.R.A. does not have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript; P.D.P. does not have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript; A.J.S. does not have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript.

Received in original form December 23, 2003; accepted in final form May 20, 2004


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Peat JK, Woolcock AJ, Cullen K. Decline of lung function and development of chronic airflow limitation: a longitudinal study of non-smokers and smokers in Busselton, Western Australia. Thorax 1990;45:32–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Dockery DW, Speizer FE, Ferris BG Jr, Ware JH, Louis TA, Spiro A III. Cumulative and reversible effects of lifetime smoking on simple tests of lung function in adults. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:286–292.[Medline]
  3. Bascom R. Differential susceptibility to tobacco smoke: possible mechanisms. Pharmacogenetics 1991;1:102–106.[Medline]
  4. Birring SS, Brightling CE, Bradding P, Entwisle JJ, Vara DD, Grigg J, Wardlaw AJ, Pavord ID. Clinical, radiologic, and induced sputum features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in nonsmokers: a descriptive study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1078–1083.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Givelber RJ, Couropmitree NN, Gottlieb DJ, Evans JC, Levy D, Myers RH, O'Connor GT. Segregation analysis of pulmonary function among families in the Framingham Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:1445–1451.
  6. Redline S, Tishler PV, Rosner B, Lewitter FI, Vandenburgh M, Weiss ST, Speizer FE. Genotypic and phenotypic similarities in pulmonary function among family members of adult monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:827–836.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Silverman EK, Province MA, Campbell EJ, Pierce JA, Rao DC. Variability of pulmonary function in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency: residual family resemblance beyond the effect of the Pi locus. Hum Hered 1990;40:340–355.[Medline]
  8. Tishler PV, Carey VJ, Reed T, Fabsitz RR. The role of genotype in determining the effects of cigarette smoking on pulmonary function. Genet Epidemiol 2002;22:272–282.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Sandford AJ, Silverman EK. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 1: susceptibility factors for COPD the genotype–environment interaction. Thorax 2002;57:736–741.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Schunemann HJ, Muti P, Freudenheim JL, Armstrong D, Browne R, Klocke RA, Trevisan M. Oxidative stress and lung function. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:939–948.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. MacNee W. Oxidants/antioxidants and COPD. Chest 2000;117:303S–317S.[Free Full Text]
  12. McKeever TM, Scrivener S, Broadfield E, Jones Z, Britton J, Lewis SA. Prospective study of diet and decline in lung function in a general population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1299–1303.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Hu G, Cassano PA. Antioxidant nutrients and pulmonary function: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:975–981.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Seidegard J, Pero RW, Miller DG, Beattie EJ. A glutathione transferase in human leukocytes as a marker for the susceptibility to lung cancer. Carcinogenesis 1986;7:751–753.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Pemble S, Schroeder KR, Spencer SR, Meyer DJ, Hallier E, Bolt HM, Ketterer B, Taylor JB. Human glutathione S-transferase theta (GSTT1): cDNA cloning and the characterization of a genetic polymorphism. Biochem J 1994;300:271–276.
  16. Ali-Osman F, Akande O, Antoun G, Mao JX, Buolamwini J. Molecular cloning, characterization, and expression in Escherichia coli of full-length cDNAs of three human glutathione S-transferase Pi gene variants: evidence for differential catalytic activity of the encoded proteins. J Biol Chem 1997;272:10004–10012.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Harries LW, Stubbins MJ, Forman D, Howard GC, Wolf CR. Identification of genetic polymorphisms at the glutathione S-transferase Pi locus and association with susceptibility to bladder, testicular and prostate cancer. Carcinogenesis 1997;18:641–644.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Autrup H. Genetic polymorphisms in human xenobiotica metabolizing enzymes as susceptibility factors in toxic response. Mutat Res 2000;464:65–76.[Medline]
  19. Harrison DJ, Cantlay AM, Rae F, Lamb D, Smith CA. Frequency of glutathione S-transferase M1 deletion in smokers with emphysema and lung cancer. Hum Exp Toxicol 1997;16:356–360.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Ishii T, Matsuse T, Teramoto S, Matsui H, Miyao M, Hosoi T, Takahashi H, Fukuchi Y, Ouchi Y. Glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) polymorphism in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1999;54:693–696.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Yim JJ, Park GY, Lee CT, Kim YW, Han SK, Shim YS, Yoo CG. Genetic susceptibility to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Koreans: combined analysis of polymorphic genotypes for microsomal epoxide hydrolase and glutathione S-transferase M1 and T1. Thorax 2000;55:121–125.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Yim JJ, Yoo CG, Lee CT, Kim YW, Han SK, Shim YS. Lack of association between glutathione S-transferase P1 polymorphism and COPD in Koreans. Lung 2002;180:119–125.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. He JQ, Ruan J, Connett JE, Anthonisen NR, Pare PD, Sandford AJ. Antioxidant gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to a rapid decline in lung function in smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:323–328.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Gilliland FD, Gauderman WJ, Vora H, Rappaport E, Dubeau L. Effects of glutathione-s-transferase m1, t1, and p1 on childhood lung function growth. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:710–716.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Anthonisen NR, Connett JE, Kiley JP, Altose MD, Bailey WC, Buist AS, Conway WA, Enright PL, Kanner RE, O'Hara P, et al. Effects of smoking intervention and the use of an inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator on the rate of decline of FEV1: the Lung Health Study. JAMA 1994;272:1497–1505.[Abstract]
  26. He JQ, Connett JE, Anthonisen NR, Paré PD, Sandford AJ. The effects of polymorphisms of the GSTM1, T1 and P1 genes and their interaction with cigarette exposure on lung function [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167:A744.
  27. Joos L, He JQ, Shepherdson MB, Connett JE, Anthonisen NR, Pare PD, Sandford AJ. The role of matrix metalloproteinase polymorphisms in the rate of decline in lung function. Hum Mol Genet 2002;11:569–576.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Tashkin DP, Altose MD, Connett JE, Kanner RE, Lee WW, Wise RA. The Lung Health Study Research Group. Methacholine reactivity predicts changes in lung function over time in smokers with early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153:1802–1811.[Abstract]
  29. O'Connor GT, Sparrow D, Weiss ST. A prospective longitudinal study of methacholine airway responsiveness as a predictor of pulmonary-function decline: the Normative Aging Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;152:87–92.[Abstract]
  30. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L. Arlequin ver. 2.000: a software for population genetics data analysis. Geneva, Switzerland: Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva; 2000.
  31. Pauwels RA, Buist AS, Calverley PM, Jenkins CR, Hurd SS. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Workshop summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:1256–1276.[Free Full Text]
  32. Madison R, Zelman R, Mittman C. Inherited risk factors for chronic lung disease. Chest 1980;77:255–257.[Free Full Text]
  33. Zhou W, Liu G, Miller DP, Thurston SW, Xu LL, Wain JC, Lynch TJ, Su L, Christiani DC. Gene–environment interaction for the ERCC2 polymorphisms and cumulative cigarette smoking exposure in lung cancer. Cancer Res 2002;62:1377–1381.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Zhou W, Thurston SW, Liu G, Xu LL, Miller DP, Wain JC, Lynch TJ, Su L, Christiani DC. The interaction between microsomal epoxide hydrolase polymorphisms and cumulative cigarette smoking in different histological subtypes of lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:461–466.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Enright PL, Johnson LR, Connett JE, Voelker H, Buist AS. Spirometry in the lung health study. 1: methods and quality control. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;143:1215–1223.[Medline]
  36. Connett JE, Kusek JW, Bailey WC, O'Hara P, Wu M. Design of the Lung Health Study: a randomized clinical trial of early intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Control Clin Trials 1993;14:3S–19S.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Sandford AJ, Chagani T, Weir TD, Connett JE, Anthonisen NR, Paré PD. Susceptibility genes for rapid decline of lung function in the Lung Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:469–473.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Fletcher C, Peto R, Tinker C, Speizer FE. The natural history of chronic bronchitis: an eight-year study of chronic obstructive lung disease in working men in London. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1976.
  39. Fletcher C, Peto R. The natural history of chronic airflow obstruction. BMJ 1977;1:1645–1648.
  40. Tager IB, Segal MR, Speizer FE, Weiss ST. The natural history of forced expiratory volumes: effect of cigarette smoking and respiratory symptoms. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;138:837–849.[Medline]
  41. Sparrow D, O'Connor G, Weiss ST. The relation of airways responsiveness and atopy to the development of chronic obstructive lung disease. Epidemiol Rev 1988;10:29–47.[Free Full Text]
  42. Kanner RE. The relationship between airways responsiveness and chronic airflow limitation. Chest 1984;86:54–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Vollmer WM, Johnson LR, Buist AS. Relationship of response to a bronchodilator and decline in forced expiratory volume in one second in population studies. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985;132:1186–1193.[Medline]
  44. Sundberg K, Johansson AS, Stenberg G, Widersten M, Seidel A, Mannervik B, Jernstrom B. Differences in the catalytic efficiencies of allelic variants of glutathione transferase P1–1 towards carcinogenic diol epoxides of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Carcinogenesis 1998;19:433–436.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Hu X, Xia H, Srivastava SK, Herzog C, Awasthi YC, Ji X, Zimniak P, Singh SV. Activity of four allelic forms of glutathione S-transferase hGSTP1-1 for diol epoxides of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1997;238:397–402.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Watson MA, Stewart RK, Smith GB, Massey TE, Bell DA. Human glutathione S-transferase P1 polymorphisms: relationship to lung tissue enzyme activity and population frequency distribution. Carcinogenesis 1998;19:275–280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Ryberg D, Skaug V, Hewer A, Phillips DH, Harries LW, Wolf CR, Ogreid D, Ulvik A, Vu P, Haugen A. Genotypes of glutathione transferase M1 and P1 and their significance for lung DNA adduct levels and cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 1997;18:1285–1289.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Pena AS. Genetics of inflammatory bowel disease. The candidate gene approach: susceptibility versus disease heterogeneity. Dig Dis 1998;16:356–363.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Moreno RH, Hogg JC, Pare PD. Mechanics of airway narrowing. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986;133:1171–1180.[Medline]
  50. Freedman BJ. The functional geometry of the bronchi: the relationship between changes in external diameter and calibre, and a consideration of the passive role played by the mucosa in bronchoconstriction. Bull Physiopathol Respir (Nancy) 1972;8:545–552.[Medline]
  51. Fryer AA, Bianco A, Hepple M, Jones PW, Strange RC, Spiteri MA. Polymorphism at the glutathione S-transferase GSTP1 locus: a new marker for bronchial hyperresponsiveness and asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:1437–1442.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Petruzzelli S, Camus AM, Carrozzi L, Ghelarducci L, Rindi M, Menconi G, Angeletti CA, Ahotupa M, Hietanen E, Aitio A, et al. Long-lasting effects of tobacco smoking on pulmonary drug-metabolizing enzymes: a case–control study on lung cancer patients. Cancer Res 1988;48:4695–4700.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Cheng L, Sturgis EM, Eicher SA, Char D, Spitz MR, Wei Q. Glutathione-S-transferase polymorphisms and risk of squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Cancer 1999;84:220–224.[CrossRef][Medline]
  54. Hamel N, Karimi S, Hebert-Blouin MN, Brunet JS, Gilfix B, Ghadirian P, Black MJ, Narod SA, Foulkes WD. Increased risk of head and neck cancer in association with GSTT1 nullizygosity for individuals with low exposure to tobacco. Int J Cancer 2000;87:452–454.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Rollinson S, Roddam P, Kane E, Roman E, Cartwright R, Jack A, Morgan GJ. Polymorphic variation within the glutathione S-transferase genes and risk of adult acute leukaemia. Carcinogenesis 2000;21:43–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Marshall SE, Bordea C, Haldar NA, Mullighan CG, Wojnarowska F, Morris PJ, Welsh KI. Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms and skin cancer after renal transplantation. Kidney Int 2000;58:2186–2193.[CrossRef][Medline]
  57. Welfare M, Monesola Adeokun A, Bassendine MF, Daly AK. Polymorphisms in GSTP1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 and susceptibility to colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:289–292.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Mann CL, Davies MB, Boggild MD, Alldersea J, Fryer AA, Jones PW, Ko Ko C, Young C, Strange RC, Hawkins CP. Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms in MS: their relationship to disability. Neurology 2000;54:552–557.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Helzlsouer KJ, Selmin O, Huang HY, Strickland PT, Hoffman S, Alberg AJ, Watson M, Comstock GW, Bell D. Association between glutathione S-transferase M1, P1, and T1 genetic polymorphisms and development of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:512–518.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Park JY, Schantz SP, Stern JC, Kaur T, Lazarus P. Association between glutathione S-transferase pi genetic polymorphisms and oral cancer risk. Pharmacogenetics 1999;9:497–504.[Medline]
  61. Vineis P, McMichael AJ. Bias and confounding in molecular epidemiological studies: special considerations. Carcinogenesis 1998;19:2063–2067.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ThoraxHome page
A R Bentley, P Emrani, and P A Cassano
Genetic variation and gene expression in antioxidant related enzymes and risk of COPD: a systematic review
Thorax, November 1, 2008; 63(11): 956 - 961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
D. Malhotra, R. Thimmulappa, A. Navas-Acien, A. Sandford, M. Elliott, A. Singh, L. Chen, X. Zhuang, J. Hogg, P. Pare, et al.
Decline in NRF2-regulated Antioxidants in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Lungs Due to Loss of Its Positive Regulator, DJ-1
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., September 15, 2008; 178(6): 592 - 604.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
J-Q. He, K. Shumansky, J. E. Connett, N. R. Anthonisen, P. D. Pare, and A. J. Sandford
Association of genetic variations in the CSF2 and CSF3 genes with lung function in smoking-induced COPD
Eur. Respir. J., July 1, 2008; 32(1): 25 - 34.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
M. Siedlinski, D. S. Postma, C. C. van Diemen, A. Blokstra, H. A. Smit, and H. M. Boezen
Lung Function Loss, Smoking, Vitamin C Intake, and Polymorphisms of the Glutamate-Cysteine Ligase Genes
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., July 1, 2008; 178(1): 13 - 19.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
M Imboden, T Rochat, M Brutsche, C Schindler, S H Downs, M W Gerbase, W Berger, N M Probst-Hensch, and the SAPALDIA Team
Glutathione S-transferase genotype increases risk of progression from bronchial hyperresponsiveness to asthma in adults
Thorax, April 1, 2008; 63(4): 322 - 328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
J-Q. He, K. Shumansky, X. Zhang, J. E. Connett, N. R. Anthonisen, and A. J. Sandford
Polymorphisms of interleukin-10 and its receptor and lung function in COPD
Eur. Respir. J., June 1, 2007; 29(6): 1120 - 1126.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
G. Tanaka, A. J. Sandford, K. Burkett, J. E. Connett, N. R. Anthonisen, P. D. Pare, and J-Q. He
Tumour necrosis factor and lymphotoxin A polymorphisms and lung function in smokers
Eur. Respir. J., January 1, 2007; 29(1): 34 - 41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. Genet.Home page
A Guenegou, B Leynaert, J Benessiano, I Pin, P Demoly, F Neukirch, J Boczkowski, and M Aubier
Association of lung function decline with the heme oxygenase-1 gene promoter microsatellite polymorphism in a general population sample. Results from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS), France.
J. Med. Genet., August 1, 2006; 43(8): e43 - e43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc Am Thorac SocHome page
E. K. Silverman
Progress in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease genetics.
Proceedings of the ATS, July 1, 2006; 3(5): 405 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
V L Kinnula
Focus on antioxidant enzymes and antioxidant strategies in smoking related airway diseases
Thorax, August 1, 2005; 60(8): 693 - 700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
F. Rodriguez, C. de la Roza, R. Jardi, M. Schaper, R. Vidal, and M. Miravitlles
Glutathione S-Transferase P1 and Lung Function in Patients With {alpha}1-Antitrypsin Deficiency and COPD
Chest, May 1, 2005; 127(5): 1537 - 1543.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
T. D. LeVan, S. Von Essen, D. J. Romberger, G. P. Lambert, F. D. Martinez, M. M. Vasquez, and J. A. Merchant
Polymorphisms in the CD14 Gene Associated with Pulmonary Function in Farmers
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2005; 171(7): 773 - 779.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
B. Nemery, W. W. Yew, R. Albert, C. Brun-Buisson, W. MacNee, F. J. Martinez, D. C. Angus, and E. Abraham
Tuberculosis, Nontuberculous Lung Infection, Pleural Disorders, Pulmonary Function, Respiratory Muscles, Occupational Lung Disease, Pulmonary Infections, and Social Issues in AJRCCM in 2004
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., March 15, 2005; 171(6): 554 - 562.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
200312-1763OCv1
170/4/388    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by He, J.-Q.
Right arrow Articles by Sandford, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by He, J.-Q.
Right arrow Articles by Sandford, A. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH