HLA-DQ Genotypes in Classic Type 1 Diabetes and in Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of the Adult

Gunnar Stenström1, Bo Berger2, Henrik Borg3, Per Fernlund4, Janice S. Dorman5 and Göran Sundkvist3

1 Department of Medicine, Varberg Hospital-Kungsbacka, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
2 Department of Medicine, Skövde Central Hospital, Skövde, Sweden.
3 Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
4 Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
5 Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Received for publication November 14, 2001; accepted for publication June 19, 2002.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
In 1993–1996, islet autoantibodies, C-peptide, and HLA-DQ genotypes were evaluated in 345 insulin-treated diabetic patients of all ages from the Skaraborg Diabetes Registry 5–6 years after their diagnosis and in 216 control subjects from the Skaraborg County, Sweden, population. The aims of this study were to clarify the importance of age at diagnosis of diabetes for HLA-DQ associations in patients with classic type 1 diabetes and whether patients considered to have latent autoimmune diabetes of the adult differed in their human leukocyte antigen (HLA) associations. An abnormally low fasting C-peptide value was used as the definition of type 1 diabetes, found in 182 of 345 (53%) patients. No major associations between age at diagnosis and HLA susceptibility or protective genotypes were detected in type 1 diabetic patients. Among the 163 patients with preserved ß-cell function, the frequency of HLA protective genotypes was clearly decreased (5% vs. 42%) in the 46 of 163 with islet antibodies compared with the 117 of 163 antibody-negative patients. The authors conclude that there were no major effects of age at diagnosis on HLA-DQ associations in classic type 1 diabetic patients, whereas lack of HLA-DQ protective genotypes was a feature of patients with slow-progressing type 1 diabetes (latent autoimmune diabetes of the adult).

autoantibodies; C-peptide; diabetes mellitus, insulin-dependent; diabetes mellitus, non-insulin-dependent; HLA-DQ antigens; islets of Langerhans

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: Ab+, with islet antibodies; Ab–, without islet antibodies; CI, confidence interval; CPEP-LOW, fasting serum C-peptide level of less than or equal to 0.24 nmol/liter; CPEP-NORM, fasting serum C-peptide level of greater than 0.24 nmol/liter; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; LADA, latent autoimmune diabetes in the adult; OR, odds ratio; SD, standard deviation.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Nerup et al. (1) were the first to report human leukocyte antigen (HLA) associations with that type of diabetes currently considered type 1 diabetes. Later, using refined techniques, others (27) described both positive and negative HLA associations with type 1 diabetes. Previous HLA studies in type 1 diabetic patients have been focused on children (815). Type 1 diabetes, however, affects individuals of all ages. Indeed, 44 percent of patients developing type 1 diabetes are above 30 years of age at the time of diagnosis (16). Despite this, HLA studies in adult type 1 diabetic patients are rare. In fact, besides the study by Caillat-Zucman et al. (17), only a small series of patients diagnosed as adults have been reported (1822). Some of these studies infer that the high-risk genotype DQA1-DQB1 *0501-*0201/*0301-*0302 is less frequent in adult type 1 diabetic patients than in children (911, 14, 15, 19, 22) and that the frequency of protective genotypes increases with the age at onset of type 1 diabetes (15).

Studies of type 1 diabetes in adult patients are complicated by the fact that type 2 diabetes is the most frequent form of diabetes in this age group. Recent studies have shown that, without an assessment of islet antibodies, it is difficult to distinguish type 1 from type 2 diabetes (2326). Patients thought to have type 2 diabetes (phenotypic type 2 diabetes) in combination with islet antibodies are prone to develop ß-cell failure (23, 27, 28). This type of diabetes has been labeled slow-progressing type 1 diabetes (29), type 1 diabetes (30), latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) (31, 32), or autoimmune diabetes not requiring insulin at diagnosis (33). The question of whether these patients have type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or type 2 diabetes complicated by type 1 diabetes, as recently suggested (30, 34), has to be answered. HLA genotyping in this context may be rewarding. Indeed, it was recently reported that the frequency of HLA genotypes negatively associated with type 1 diabetes (protective HLA types) was increased in LADA patients (15, 26).

To examine the effect of age at diagnosis on HLA associations in classic type 1 diabetes, we evaluated ß-cell function in a population-based group of type 1 diabetic patients 5–6 years after diagnosis when ß-cell failure should be overt (28). In addition, islet antibodies were measured to test the hypothesis that antibody-positive diabetic patients with preserved ß-cell function 5–6 years after diagnosis of diabetes may have different HLA associations than do autoimmune type 1 diabetic patients with obvious ß-cell failure (i.e., with classic type 1 diabetes). The aims of this study were to clarify whether the relation between HLA genotypes and type 1 diabetes is affected by age at diagnosis and, in patients with preserved ß-cell function, by the presence of islet antibodies.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Patients
The Skaraborg Diabetes Registry (established in 1991), serving the county of Skaraborg (280,000 inhabitants), Sweden, is a reliable diabetes registry (96 percent ascertainment) (35). As of December 31, 1995, there were 9,941 patients registered in the Skaraborg Diabetes Registry; 3,362 new cases were diagnosed during the 7-year period from January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1991. Among the 3,362 new cases, 557 (17 percent) were started on continuous insulin treatment immediately or later after the diagnosis of diabetes (mean, 0.9 years, standard deviation (SD), 1.6 years; range, 0–6.7 years). The current follow-up study was conducted in 1993–1996 when the mean duration of diabetes was 5.6 (SD, 2.1) years (range, 1.3–10.7 years) in the patients. After diagnosis and before follow-up, 52 of 557 insulin-treated patients had died, and 26 of 557 had moved out of the county. Accordingly, 479 patients from the original cohort (86 percent) were invited to the follow-up study, and 356 of them accepted and completed the investigation. It was, however, discovered at the follow-up that 10 of 356 participants had secondary diabetes and one had missing data. Therefore, altogether 345 of 479 eligible patients (72 percent) participated in this study; 161 were women (47 percent) and 82 were children (36 girls; 44 percent; below 15 years of age) when diagnosed as a diabetic patient. Using the World Health Organization definition (36) at the time of registration in the Skaraborg Diabetes Registry, the reporting physicians considered 191 of the included patients to have type 1 and 154 to have type 2 diabetes.

Control subjects
Nondiabetic controls for the patients younger than 15 years at diagnosis were selected according to the World Health Organization DIAMOND Molecular Epidemiology Project protocol (37). Following this protocol, 101 individuals treated with minor surgery unlikely to have any association with the HLA system acted as controls (matched for age and gender) to the 82 diabetic children. Nondiabetic controls for patients diagnosed above 15 years of age were obtained from the Skaraborg Population Registry; a 1 percent sample of the population aged 15 years or more (2,300 individuals) was available as potential controls. From this population, two subjects matched for age and gender to each diabetic proband (n = 246) were invited, and 118 agreed to participate in the investigation. Three of the selected control subjects had diabetes and had to be excluded. Hence, the nondiabetic control population comprised 216 subjects (age: mean, 29.8 (SD, 13.5) years; range, 15.7–81.2 years; 103 (47.7 percent) females). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee, Göteborg University. All participants gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Methods
Omitting the morning insulin injection before vein puncture, we obtained a blood sample from each of the 345 participating patients after an overnight fast. This was immediately followed by an intravenous injection of 1 mg of glucagon in 254 of 345 (73.6 percent) patients, and a postglucagon blood sample was taken 6 minutes later. The main reason for not doing glucagon testing in the remaining 91 patients was to avoid glucagon side effects in young or elderly patients: 84 of 91 (92.3 percent) patients not tested with glucagon were below 20 years of age or above 65 years. A blood sample was obtained from 216 controls, with the sample being taken from 114 of these while fasting. Among the controls, HLA genotyping was conducted in 216, autoantibodies were measured in 213 (serum lacking in three subjects), and fasting serum C-peptide levels were determined in 114.

Human leukocyte antigen
HLA-DQA1 and DQB1 molecular typing was performed on DNA extracted from peripheral blood lymphocytes (38) using the polymerase chain reaction sequence-specific oligonucleotides method (39). Eight DQA1 alleles and 14 DQB1 alleles were evaluated using the nomenclature of the World Health Organization Nomenclature Committee for factors of the HLA system (40).

In the present study, we were particularly interested in identifying the established type 1 diabetes risk genotypes, that is, DQA1-DQB1 *0301-*0302/*0501-*0201, *0301-*0302/X, and *0501-*0201/X (X is any other haplotype, with the exception of the protective *0102(3)-*0602(3) haplotype) (26, 41). In addition, we were focused on the established type 1 diabetes protective genotypes: DQA1-DQB1 *0102(3)-*0602(3)/X (X is either a homozygous haplotype or any other haplotype) (7, 26).

C-peptide
Serum C-peptide was measured by routine methods: RIA-gnost C-peptide (Hoechst AG, Marburg, Germany), with a detection limit of 0.10 nmol/liter (coefficient of variation, 8.8 percent at the 0.48-nmol/liter level) during the first part of the study, and C-PEP-CT2 (CIS Bio International, Marcoule, France), with a detection limit of 0.025 nmol/liter (coefficient of variation, 8.9 percent at the 0.64-nmol/liter level), from January 1, 1995. In the 114 control subjects with a fasting blood sample, the mean fasting serum C-peptide level was 0.67 (SD, 0.26) nmol/liter; the range, 0.3–1.9 nmol/liter. Values lower than the mean of –1.64 nmol/liter (one-sided test) for the controls were considered abnormally low (<=0.24 nmol/liter). A postglucagon serum C-peptide level of less than or equal to 0.6 nmol/liter was considered abnormal as well (32, 42, 43). A highly significant correlation between fasting and postglucagon serum C-peptide values was observed (r = 0.96; p < 0.0001).

Islet cell antibodies
Islet cell antibodies were determined by an indirect immunofluorescence assay (44). The cutoff limit for abnormality of the pancreas was 3 Juvenile Diabetes Foundation units. With the 13th International Diabetes Antibody Proficiency Test for islet cell antibodies, this assay showed a sensitivity of 100 percent and a specificity of 100 percent. Islet cell antibodies were detected in a total of seven of 213 (3 percent) controls in the current study.

Glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody
Glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were measured by a radioligand binding assay (125I-labeled human recombinant glutamic acid decarboxylase 65; RSR, Limited, Cardiff, United Kingdom) (45). Values of 1.3 units/ml or more for children 0–14 years of age (45) and of 2.0 units/ml or more for adults aged 15 years or over (based on the control group of the current study) were considered abnormal. The interassay and intraassay coefficients of variation were 13 percent and 4 percent, respectively (45). The sensitivity and specificity were 100 percent, respectively, when compared with a 35S-labeled glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody assay evaluated in the Diabetes Antibody Proficiency Program (45). In the current study, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were detected in five of 213 (2.3 percent) controls; islet cell antibodies and glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were detected simultaneously in only one of 213 controls. Thus, a total of 11 of 213 (5.2 percent) controls had at least one autoimmune marker (islet cell antibodies and/or glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies). Measurements of IA-2 antibodies were not considered necessary. Positivity for islet cell antibodies and/or glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies is closely associated with autoimmune type 1 diabetes, whereas isolated IA-2 antibody positivity often is transient and not associated with ß-cell failure and type 1 diabetes (28). In addition, it has been shown that type 1 diabetic patients with glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies or islet cell antibodies at diagnosis in almost all cases are positive 5 years later (46, 47).

Statistical analyses
Comparisons between group frequencies were performed by use of the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test with corrections of p values for multiple comparisons when appropriate. Group comparisons with respect to age, diabetes duration, serum C-peptide, insulin dose, body mass index, and so on were performed using analysis of variances (fractional and post hoc Sheffe’s test). Correlation between fasting and stimulated C-peptide was tested by Spearman’s rank correlation. Data are reported as the mean and standard deviation. Logarithmic age was used for univariate analysis of variance between age associations with type 1 diabetes-promoting and -protective genotypes. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated for the different genotypes versus controls with genotype X/X as baseline (odds ratio (OR) = 1.00) by use of the formula ad/bc, where a is the number of patients with one of the genotypes DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302/DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201, DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302/X, *0501-DQB1*0201/X, or DQA1*0102(3)-DQB1*0602(3)/X; b is the number of control subjects with the corresponding genotype; c is the number of diabetic patients with the nondiabetogenic genotype X/X; and d is the number of control subjects with the nondiabetogenic genotype X/X.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Antibodies
Islet cell antibodies were detected in 88 patients, 67 clinically considered as having type 1 and 21 as having type 2 diabetes, respectively, whereas glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were detected in 141 patients, 100 considered as having clinical type 1 and 41 as having clinical type 2 diabetes. Islet cell antibodies and glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were detected simultaneously in 70 patients (50 with clinical type 1, 20 with clinical type 2), and islet cell antibodies or glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were detected in 85 diabetic patients (65 with clinical type 1, 20 with clinical type 2). Consequently, islet cell antibodies and/or glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies were present in 157 diabetic patients (116 with clinical type 1, 41 with clinical type 2).

C-peptide and clinical characteristics
The 345 diabetic patients could be divided into two groups according to their fasting C-peptide values: diabetic patients with low C-peptide values (<=0.24 nmol/liter; CPEP-LOW) and those with normal C-peptide values (>0.24 nmol/liter; CPEP-NORM). CPEP-LOW comprised 182 patients (111/182 patients (61 percent) with islet antibodies (CPEP-LOW Ab+) and 71/182 patients (39 percent) without (CPEP-LOW Ab–)), whereas CPEP-NORM comprised 163 patients (46/163 patients (28 percent) with islet antibodies (CPEP-NORM Ab+) and 117/163 patients (72 percent) without (CPEP-NORM Ab–)). Postglucagon C-peptide values of <=0.60 nmol were found in all tested CPEP-LOW patients. Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of the patients. CPEP-LOW patients were significantly younger at diagnosis, were slimmer, had higher insulin dosages, had lower stimulated C-peptide values, and were more often considered having type 1 diabetes compared with CPEP-NORM patients. There were no significant differences in clinical features and C-peptide values (fasting and postglucagon) between CPEP-LOW patients with and without islet antibodies.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Relation of age, gender, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin therapy, and clinical type of diabetes with C-peptide levels and islet autoantibody status among insulin-treated diabetic patients diagnosed in 1985–1991, Skaraborg County, Sweden, 1993–1996
 
CPEP-LOW patients
DQA1-DQB1 genotypes
Because there were no significant differences in the distribution of HLA-DQ genotypes between CPEP-LOW Ab+ patients and CPEP-LOW Ab– patients, these subgroups were merged into one single group (CPEP-LOW) representing classic type 1 diabetes. Table 2 demonstrates that the *0301-*0302/*0501-*0201 (OR = 10.42, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 4.23, 25.67) and the *0301-*0302/X (OR = 5.29, 95 percent CI: 2.72, 10.29) type 1 diabetes high-risk genotypes were closely and positively associated with diabetes, whereas the DQA1*0102(3)-DQB1*0602(3)/X type 1 diabetes protective genotype was clearly negatively (OR = 0.31, 95 percent CI: 0.14, 0.68) associated with classic type 1 diabetes. The *0501-*0201/X genotype was, however, not associated with classic type 1 diabetes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Distribution of HLA-DQA1-DQB1 genotypes in controls and among insulin-treated diabetic patients diagnosed in 1985–1991 subdivided into three groups according to C-peptide levels and islet autoantibody status, Skaraborg County, Sweden, 1993–1996
 
Table 3 shows that there were no significant associations between HLA-DQA1-DQB1 susceptibility and protective genotypes (and antibody status; data not shown) versus age at the time of diabetes diagnosis. Univariate analysis of variance revealed, however, a significant difference in age at diabetes diagnosis among high- and low-risk type 1 diabetes genotypes. A post hoc test showed that the 12 diabetic patients with the protective genotype *0102(3)-*0602(3)/X were significantly older (p < 0.05) at the time of diabetes diagnosis compared with the 40 patients with DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302/DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201 (33 years vs. 19 years). There was no association between gender and the different HLA genotypes (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Relation of HLA-DQA1-DQB1 genotypes with age at diabetes diagnosis among insulin-treated diabetic patients diagnosed in 1985–1991 with low C-peptide levels, Skaraborg County, Sweden, 1993–1996
 
CPEP-NORM patients
Table 1 shows the clinical differences between CPEP-NORM Ab+ and Ab– patients. CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients had a significantly lower body mass index, an earlier need for insulin treatment, lower fasting and glucagon-stimulated C-peptide values, and a higher proportion of clinical type 1 diabetes than did CPEP-NORM Ab– patients.

DQA1-DQB1 genotypes
Table 2 shows that CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients had significantly higher frequencies of the DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302/X (35 percent vs. 12 percent) genotype and lower frequencies of the DQA1*0102(3)-DQB1*0602(3)/X (7 percent vs. 37 percent) genotype compared with controls. Hence, besides the DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302/DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201 genotype, HLA-DQ diabetes susceptibility and protective genotypes were similar in antibody-positive CPEP-NORM patients and in CPEP-LOW patients, that is, patients with classic type 1 diabetes. In contrast, table 2 shows that the HLA-DQ genotypes in CPEP-NORM Ab– patients were similar to those in controls; that is, CPEP-NORM Ab– patients seemed to have classic type 2 diabetes.

CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients
Table 4 shows that CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients could be divided into two groups (clinical type 1 diabetes and clinical type 2 diabetes, respectively) of equal sizes according to the clinical classification provided by the patient’s physician. There were no significant differences in insulin dose, fasting C-peptide levels, or postglucagon C-peptide levels between patients with clinical type 1 versus clinical type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, patients considered to have type 1 diabetes were significantly younger and had a lower body mass index than did those considered to have type 2 diabetes. Moreover, irrespective of clinical type 1 or type 2 diabetes, CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients had a significantly lower frequency of the type 1 diabetes protective *0102(3)-*602(3)/X compared with controls. Indeed, the *0102-*602/X was completely missing in both type 1 and type 2 CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients. In contrast, compared with controls, the type 1 diabetes risk genotypes *0301-*0302/*0501-*0201 and *0301-*0302/X were significantly increased in patients considered to have type 1 diabetes but not in those considered to have type 2 diabetes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Clinical characteristics and HLA-DQA1-DQB1 genotypes in relation to clinical type of diabetes among insulin-treated diabetic patients diagnosed in 1985–1991 with normal C-peptide levels and islet autoantibodies, Skaraborg County, Sweden, 1993–1996
 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
This study shows that, among insulin-treated diabetic patients with clear signs of type 1 diabetes (i.e., ß-cell failure), there are no major effects of age at diagnosis on HLA associations. Classic type 1 diabetes seems to be uniform with respect to HLA genotypes. On the other hand, in patients with preserved ß-cell function combined with islet autoimmunity, an interesting discrepancy in the HLA genotypes was observed. Islet autoimmunity was associated with a lack of HLA protective genotypes, whereas the clinical phenotype of type 1 diabetes was associated with HLA susceptibility genotypes. In contrast, patients with preserved ß-cell function and without islet autoimmunity (classic type 2 diabetes) did not deviate with respect to HLA genotypes compared with controls. Hence, from the HLA perspective, patients with preserved ß-cell function and islet autoimmunity seem to have characteristics closer to those of type 1 diabetes than those of type 2 diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes
The need to be treated with insulin to survive may be considered the classic definition of type 1 diabetes. In keeping with this, biochemical ß-cell deficiency was considered the major criterion of type 1 diabetes in our study. An abnormally low fasting C-peptide value was therefore selected as a criterion for inclusion of patients in the CPEP-LOW group. The observation that all patients with an abnormally low fasting C-peptide concentration also fulfilled the classic criteria for insulin deficiency after the glucagon test (42) favors our classification of the patients into CPEP-LOW (most often type 1 diabetes) versus CPEP-NORM (most often type 2 diabetes) groups.

Using an abnormally low C-peptide value as the endpoint of type 1 diabetes, we could not detect any major effects of age at diagnosis on HLA-DQ susceptibility or protective genotypes associations in our population-based study of insulin-treated patients. Although a slight decrease of DQA1-DQB1 *0301-*0302/*0501-*0201 (susceptibility) and increase of *0102(3)-*0602(3)/X (protective) genotypes in patients over 35 years of age at diagnosis were observed, these differences were not significant. Accordingly, patients with type 1 diabetes seem to have a uniform type of diabetes with respect to HLA-DQ genotypes. Hence, with only about half of the patients tested in our study compared with that of Caillat-Zucman et al. (17), contrary to their findings, we could not confirm that the age at diagnosis of diabetes affects type 1 diabetes susceptible and protective HLA genotypes associations. Indeed, our results in Swedish patients are in agreement with the observation by Mizota et al. (48) in Japanese patients. It has, however, been reported that DQB1*0302 may predispose to occurrence of type 1 diabetes in young individuals, that is, patients 10 years of age or younger (10, 49). The number of patients in this age group was low in our study. The lack of an association between the *0301-*0302/X and *0102(3)-*0602(3)X genotypes and age is in agreement with previous findings in 0- to 34-year-old Swedish (11) and Finnish (26) type 1 diabetic patients. Accordingly, we have to conclude that, on the basis of our study, the effect of age at diagnosis on HLA type 1 diabetes susceptibility and protective genotypes seems to be minimal or absent. Nevertheless, our observation that patients with the protective genotypes *0102(3)-*0602(3)/X were older at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes than patients with *0301-*0302/*0501-*0201 indicates that factors related to HLA genotypes are still of some importance for when type 1 diabetes develops. This has also been stressed by Graham et al. (15) and Sabbah et al. (22), who found a decreasing frequency of DQA1-DQB1 *0501-*0201/*0301-*0302 and DQB1*20/*0302, respectively, with an increasing age at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. In agreement with our observation that patients with *0102(3)-*0602(3)/X were older at diagnosis than other type 1 diabetic patients, these authors reported an increased frequency of DQA1-DQB1 *0102-*0602/X with age, suggesting an age-related attenuation of this genotype’s protective power.

The DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201/X genotype, a diabetes risk HLA genotype in some populations (50), was in our study neutral with respect to type 1 diabetes. Only in association with DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302 did DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201 confer the highest type 1 diabetes risk genotype, emphasizing that DQA1-DQB1 heterozygosity confers the highest type 1 diabetes risk, perhaps explained by the particularly diabetogenic heterodimers formed from gene products in trans (i.e., DQA1*0501 and DQB1*0302) (50, 51).

Slow-progressing type 1 diabetes
We also tried to clarify whether there are patients with specific HLA genotypes associated with preserved ß-cell function combined with islet autoimmunity (CPEP-NORM Ab+). Recently, it was suggested that genes associated with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes interact or operate separately in LADA (34). Indeed, this was confirmed in our study. Both patients with clinical type 1 and patients with clinical type 2 diabetes were found in our CPEP-NORM Ab+ group. Most interestingly, among antibody-positive patients with preserved ß-cell function (CPEP-NORM Ab+), clinical type 1 diabetes was strongly associated with the HLA susceptibility genotypes, whereas such associations were lacking in corresponding patients with clinical type 2 diabetes. Hence, both patients with and patients without type 1 diabetes susceptibility genotypes were found in this group of patients (CPEP-NORM Ab+). Moreover, unrelated to the phenotype of diabetes and the HLA diabetes susceptibility genotypes, lack of the HLA diabetes protective genotypes *0102(3)-*0602(3)/X was associated with islet autoimmunity in our patients suspected to have LADA. This observation is consistent with those of Pugliese et al. (7, 52), who found islet autoimmunity in relatives of type 1 diabetic patients to be unassociated with the development of type 1 diabetes in the presence of DQB1*0602.

HLA studies in LADA patients are rare. It has been suggested that the typical HLA genetic predisposition to type 1 diabetes is less marked in LADA than in patients diagnosed at a younger age (53). In agreement with this concept but in contrast to our study, Tuomi et al. (26) reported that LADA patients (defined as glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody-positive type 2 diabetes patients) had a higher frequency (38 percent) of protective HLA-DQB1*0602(3) compared with type 1 diabetic patients (16 percent). Indeed, also in contrast to our findings, in CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients with clinical type 2 diabetes, HLA susceptibility genotypes DQB1*0201/DQB1*0302 and DQB1*0302/X were found with increased frequency in the LADA patients of Tuomi et al. compared with their controls (35 percent vs. 16 percent). How can this discrepancy be explained? An obvious possibility is differences in patient populations. Tuomi et al. investigated patients with a known diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. On the basis of their observations, Tuomi et al. defined LADA as glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody-positive clinical type 2 diabetic patients above the age of 35 years at diagnosis without a need for insulin treatment within 6 months, whereas our patients had preserved ß-cell function after 6 years of diabetes. Because many islet antibody-positive adult diabetic patients develop ß-cell failure within 5 years after diagnosis (28), it is possible that classic type 1 diabetic patients were included in the study by Tuomi et al. In our study, classic type 1 diabetic patients were found in the CPEP-LOW group. Another possibility is differences between Swedish and Finnish (Bothnic) populations as supported by Ilonen et al. (54), who actually found differences in DQB1*0301 versus DQB1*0302 frequencies between different subpopulations in Finland.

The possibility that LADA is found in a heterogeneous group of patients also has to be considered. In the classic description of LADA, islet autoimmunity is associated with impaired ß-cell function in type 2 diabetic patients (25, 31, 32). In contrast, the CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients showed preserved ß-cell function 6 years after diagnosis of diabetes. Moreover, among CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients, those with clinical type 1 diabetes were younger at diagnosis and were immediately put on insulin, whereas those with clinical type 2 diabetes had been treated with oral hypoglycemic agents alone for more than 2 years. It is now clear that, in slow-progressing type 1 diabetes (LADA), autoimmunity is not latent and not limited to adults (33). Although insulin treatment in our LADA patients may have prevented ß-cell failure (55), only prospective observation of our CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients will reveal whether proven islet autoimmunity is associated with future ß-cell failure. Until then, our study suggests that insulin-treated LADA patients, rather, have a lack of HLA protective genotypes than a presence of HLA diabetes susceptibility genes. It could be that, among our CPEP-NORM Ab+ patients, only those with HLA susceptibility genes will develop ß-cell failure and overt type 1 diabetes in the future. Future prospective observation of our patients will clarify this issue.

Conclusion
Our study did not find any major effect of age on HLA-DQ associations in classic type 1 diabetes. Among insulin-treated diabetic patients with islet antibodies and preserved ß-cell function (LADA), a clear negative association with HLA-DQ protective genotypes was detected, whereas HLA-DQ type 1 diabetes susceptibility genes were not mandatory.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
This study was supported by grants from the Lidköping and Skaraborg diabetes associations, Lions Lidköping, Novo-Nordic Pharma AB, the Swedish Medical Association, Göteborg Läkaresällskap, and the Research Funds Skaraborg (Skaraborgsinstitutets Forsknings-och Utvecklingsfond), the Research Funds Varberg Hospital (Varbergs sjukhus Forsknings-och Utvecklingsfond), the Child Diabetes Fund, Crafoord Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation-Wallenberg Diabetes Research Program (grant K98-99JD-12813), Ernhold Lundström Foundation, Malmö Diabetes Association, Novo-Nordic Foundation, Albert Påhlsson Foundation, Research Funds Malmö University Hospital, Swedish Diabetes Association, Swedish Medical Research Council (grant 7507), and University Funds Lund University.

The authors thank the diabetes nurses in County Skaraborg for completion of the questionnaires and collection of blood samples. They appreciate the skillful analytic work on the HLA determinations by Dr. Erin McCanlies and Dr. Bridget McCarthy. They also thank Ulrika Gustavsson, Ann Radelius, and Christina Rosborn for valuable technical assistance in the islet cell antibody and glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody determinations. Glucagon was supplied by Novo-Nordic Pharma AB.


    NOTES
 
Reprint requests to Dr. Gunnar Stenström, Department of Medicine, Kungsbacka Hospital, SE-434 80 Kungsbacka, Sweden (e-mail: gunnar.stenstrom{at}lthalland.se). Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Nerup J, Platz P, Andersen OO, et al. HL-A antigens and diabetes mellitus. Lancet 1974;2:864–6.[Medline]
  2. Bertrams J, Barr M. Histocompatibility testing. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1984.
  3. Morel PA, Dorman JS, Todd JA, et al. Aspartic acid at position 57 of the HLA-DQ beta chain protects against type I diabetes: a family study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1988;85:8111–15.[Abstract]
  4. Todd JA, Acha-Orbea H, Bell JI, et al. A molecular basis for MHC class II-associated autoimmunity. Science 1988;240:1003–9.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Trucco M, Dorman JS. Immunogenetics of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in humans. Crit Rev Immunol 1989;9:201–45.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Baisch JM, Weeks T, Giles R, et al. Analysis of HLA-DQ genotypes and susceptibility in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1836–41.[Abstract]
  7. Pugliese A, Gianani R, Moromisato R, et al. HLA-DQB1*0602 is associated with dominant protection from diabetes even among islet cell antibody-positive first-degree relatives of patients with IDDM. Diabetes 1995;44:608–13.[Abstract]
  8. Svejgaard A, Jakobsen BK, Platz P, et al. HLA associations in insulin-dependent diabetes: search for heterogeneity in different groups of patients from a homogeneous population. Tissue Antigens 1986;28:237–44.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Heimberg H, Nagy ZP, Somers G, et al. Complementation of HLA-DQA and -DQB genes confers susceptibility and protection to insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Hum Immunol 1992;33:10–17.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Vandewalle CL, Decraene T, Schuit FC, et al. Insulin autoantibodies and high titre islet cell antibodies are preferentially associated with the HLA DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302 haplotype at clinical type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus before age 10 years, but not at onset between age 10 and 40 years. The Belgian Diabetes Registry. Diabetologia 1993;36:1155–62.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Kockum I, Lernmark Å, Dahlquist G, et al. Genetic and immunological findings in patients with newly diagnosed insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Swedish Childhood Diabetes Study Group and the Diabetes Incidence in Sweden Study (DISS) Group. Horm Metab Res 1996;28:344–7.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Vandewalle CL, Falorni A, Lernmark Å, et al. Associations of GAD65- and IA-2-autoantibodies with genetic risk markers in new-onset IDDM patients and their siblings. The Belgian Diabetes Registry. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1547–52.[Abstract]
  13. Vandewalle CL, Coeckelberghs MI, De Leeuw IH, et al. Epidemiology, clinical aspects, and biology of IDDM patients under age 40 years. Comparison of data from Antwerp with complete ascertainment with data from Belgium with 40% ascertainment. The Belgian Diabetes Registry. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1556–61.[Abstract]
  14. Lohmann T, Sessler J, Verlohren HJ, et al. Distinct genetic and immunological features in patients with onset of IDDM before and after age 40. Diabetes Care 1997;20:524–9.[Abstract]
  15. Graham J, Kockum I, Sanjeevi CB, et al. Negative association between type 1 diabetes and HLA DQB1*0602- DQA1*0102 is attenuated with age at onset. Swedish Childhood Diabetes Study Group. Eur J Immunogenet 1999;26:117–27.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Molbak AG, Christau B, Marner B, et al. Incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in age groups over 30 years in Denmark. Diabet Med 1994;11:650–5.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Caillat-Zucman S, Garchon HJ, Timsit J, et al. Age-dependent HLA genetic heterogeneity of type 1 insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Clin Invest 1992;90:2242–50.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Karjalainen J, Salmela P, Ilonen J, et al. A comparison of childhood and adult type I diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1989;320:881–6.[Abstract]
  19. Awata T, Hagura R, Urakami T, et al. Age-dependent HLA genetic heterogeneity of IDDM in Japanese patients. (Letter). Diabetologia 1995;38:748–9.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Chan S, Thai A, Lin Y, et al. Influence of gender and age at onset on the HLA associations in Chinese with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Hum Immunol 1995;44:175–80.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Tait B, Harrison L, Drummond B, et al. HLA antigens and age at diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Hum Immunol 1995;42:116–22.[ISI][Medline]
  22. Sabbah E, Savola K, Ebeling T, et al. Genetic, autoimmune, and clinical characteristics of childhood- and adult-onset type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:1326–32.[Abstract]
  23. Gottsäter A, Landin-Olsson M, Fernlund P, et al. Beta-cell function in relation to islet cell antibodies during the first 3 yr after clinical diagnosis of diabetes in type II diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 1993;16:902–10.[Abstract]
  24. Hagopian WA, Karlsen AE, Gottsäter A, et al. Quantitative assay using recombinant human islet glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD65) shows that 64K autoantibody positivity at onset predicts diabetes type. J Clin Invest 1993;91:368–74.[ISI][Medline]
  25. Tuomi T, Groop LC, Zimmet PZ, et al. Antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase reveal latent autoimmune diabetes mellitus in adults with a non-insulin-dependent onset of disease. Diabetes 1993;42:359–62.[Abstract]
  26. Tuomi T, Carlsson Å, Li H, et al. Clinical and genetic characteristics of type 2 diabetes with and without GAD antibodies. Diabetes 1999;48:150–7.[Abstract]
  27. Humphrey AR, McCarty DJ, Mackay IR, et al. Autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase and phenotypic features associated with early insulin treatment in individuals with adult-onset diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 1998;15:113–19.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Borg H, Gottsäter A, Landin-Olsson M, et al. High levels of antigen-specific islet antibodies predict future ß-cell failure in patients with onset of diabetes in adult age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:3032–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Zimmet P, Turner R, McCarty D, et al. Crucial points at diagnosis. Type 2 diabetes or slow type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999;22(suppl 2):B59–64.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Juneja R, Palmer JP. Type 1 1/2 diabetes: myth or reality? Autoimmunity 1999;29:65–83.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Groop LC, Bottazzo GF, Doniach D. Islet cell antibodies identify latent type I diabetes in patients aged 35–75 years at diagnosis. Diabetes 1986;35:237–41.[Abstract]
  32. Zimmet PZ, Tuomi T, Mackay IR, et al. Latent autoimmune diabetes mellitus in adults (LADA): the role of antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase in diagnosis and prediction of insulin dependency. Diabet Med 1994;11:299–303.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Pozzilli P, Di Mario U. Autoimmune diabetes not requiring insulin at diagnosis (latent autoimmune diabetes of the adult): definition, characterization, and potential prevention. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1460–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Li H, Lindholm E, Almgren P, et al. Possible human leukocyte antigen-mediated genetic interaction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:574–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Berger B, Stenström G, Chang YF, et al. The prevalence of diabetes in a Swedish population of 280,411 inhabitants. A report from the Skaraborg Diabetes Registry. Diabetes Care 1998;21:546–8.[Abstract]
  36. Diabetes mellitus. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1985;727:1–113.[Medline]
  37. Dorman S, Kosova M, O’Leary L, et al. Case-control molecular epidemiology studies: standards for the WHO DIAMOND Project. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1994.
  38. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF. A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res 1988;16:1215.
  39. Fernandez-Vina MA, Bignon JD. Primers and oligonucleotide probes (SSOP) used for DNA typing of HLA class II alleles. In: Charron D, ed. Genetic diversity of HLA: functional and medical implications. Paris, France: EDK Press, 1997:596–632.
  40. Bodmer JG, Marsh SG, Albert ED, et al. Nomenclature for factors of the HLA system, 1994. Hum Immunol 1994;41:1–20.[ISI][Medline]
  41. Bruno G, De Salvia A, Arcari R, et al. Clinical, immunological, and genetic heterogeneity of diabetes in an Italian population-based cohort of lean newly diagnosed patients aged 30–54 years. Diabetes Care 1999;22:50–5.[Abstract]
  42. Madsbad S, Krarup T, McNair P, et al. Practical clinical value of the C-peptide response to glucagon stimulation in the choice of treatment in diabetes mellitus. Acta Med Scand 1981;210:153–6.[ISI][Medline]
  43. Gjessing HJ. C-peptide used in the estimation of islet beta-cell function in diabetes. Dan Med Bull 1992;39:438–52.[ISI][Medline]
  44. Olsson ML, Sundkvist G, Lernmark Å. Prolonged incubation in the two-colour immunofluorescence test increases the prevalence and titres of islet cell antibodies in type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1987;30:327–32.[ISI][Medline]
  45. Borg H, Fernlund P, Sundkvist G. Measurement of antibodies against glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GADA): two new 125I assays compared with [35S]GAD 65-ligand binding assay. Clin Chem 1997;43:779–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Borg H, Marcus C, Sjöblad S, et al. Islet cell antibody frequency differs from that of glutamic acid decarboxylase/IA2 antibodies after diagnosis of diabetes. Acta Paediatr 2000;89:46–51.[ISI][Medline]
  47. Borg H, Gottsäter A, Fernlund P, et al. A 12-year prospective study of the relationship between islet antibodies and beta-cell function at and after the diagnosis in patients with adult-onset diabetes. Diabetes 2002;51:1754–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Mizota M, Uchigata Y, Morizama S, et al. Age-dependent association of HLA-A24 in Japanese IDDM patients. Diabetologia 1996;39:371–3.[Medline]
  49. Zevaco-Mattei C, Reviron D, Atlan-Gepner C, et al. Relationship between HLA-DQ and -DR genotypes and clinical characteristics in a French population of type 1 diabetic patients. Diabet Med 1999;16:201–6.[ISI][Medline]
  50. Dorman JS, Bunker CH. HLA-DQ locus of the human leukocyte antigen complex and type 1 diabetes mellitus: a HuGE review. Epidemiol Rev 2000;22:218–27.[ISI][Medline]
  51. Khalil I, Deschamps I, Lepage V, et al. Dose effect of cis- and trans-encoded HLA-DQ alpha beta heterodimers in IDDM susceptibility. Diabetes 1992;41:378–84.[Abstract]
  52. Pugliese A, Kawasaki E, Zeller M, et al. Sequence analysis of the diabetes-protective human leukocyte antigen-DQB1*0602 allele in unaffected, islet cell antibody-positive first degree relatives and in rare patients with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:1722–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Horton V, Stratton I, Bottazzo GF, et al. Genetic heterogeneity of autoimmune diabetes: age of presentation in adults is influenced by HLA DRB1 and DQB1 genotypes (UKPDS 43). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Diabetologia 1999;42:608–16.[ISI][Medline]
  54. Ilonen J, Reijonen H, Green A, et al. Geographical differences within Finland in the frequency of HLA-DQ genotypes associated with type 1 diabetes susceptibility. Eur J Immunogenet 2000;27:225–30.[ISI][Medline]
  55. Kobayashi T, Nakanishi K, Murase T, et al. Small doses of subcutaneous insulin as a strategy for preventing slowly progressive beta-cell failure in islet cell antibody-positive patients with clinical features of NIDDM. Diabetes 1996;45:622–6.[Abstract]