# Relationship between Long Noncoding RNA H19 Polymorphisms and Risk of Coronary Artery Disease in a Chinese Population: A Case-Control Study

Authors: Wei-na Hu; Han-xi Ding; Qian Xu; Xue-ying Zhang; Da-tong Yang; Yuan-zhe Jin
Journal: Disease Markers
 (2020)

---

## Abstract

Background/Aim. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major health problem that has high morbidity and mortality around the world. In recent years, long noncoding RNA H19 has been reported to affect the proliferation and apoptosis of vascular cells, which directly or indirectly results in atherosclerosis. We performed a case-control study to explore the relationship between H19 gene polymorphisms (rs2735971, rs2839698, and rs3024270) and the risk of CAD. Methods. We collected 732 samples from Liaoning Province, China, and three polymorphisms in long noncoding RNA H19 were genotyped using the KASP platform. Results. Our data showed that H19 rs2735971 and rs3024270 variant genotypes were associated with a decreased risk of CAD (rs2735971, P=0.003, oddsratioOR=0.6195, 95%confidenceinterval=0.44−0.84; rs3024270, P=0.030, OR=0.65, 95%confidenceinterval=0.44−0.96). No significant association with the risk of CAD was found for H19 rs2839698 polymorphism (P>0.05). In haplotype analysis, H19 polymorphisms of rs2735971-rs2839698-rs3024270 A-C-C haplotype reduced the risk of CAD by 0.61-fold (P=0.004, OR=0.61, 95%confidenceinterval=0.43–0.86). In addition, we found that rs2839698 interacted with smoking (Pinteraction=0.027), and according to multifactor dimensionality reduction analysis, the three-factor model including H19 rs2839698-smoking-drinking was the best model for the risk of CAD (testing balanced accuracy=0.6979). Conclusion. Our study demonstrated that some genotypes of H19 rs2735971 and rs3024270 polymorphisms, as well as rs2735971-rs2839698-rs3024270 A-C-C haplotype, were associated with the risk of CAD in a Chinese population, and these genotypes have the potential to be biomarkers for predicting CAD risk. We also found that rs2735971-rs2839698-rs3024270 A-C-C may have a significantly lower risk of CAD. The recessive genetic model of rs3024270 could predict the severity of CAD.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major health problem, with high morbidity and mortality around the world [1]. Reports of cardiovascular diseases in China in 2017 [2] show that CAD is still on the rise. In addition, 11 million Chinese people have CAD, and 3.4 million will die of the disease in the next 20 years.CAD is a multifactorial disease with modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. Genetic factors account for about 50% of the susceptibility to CAD according to a genome-wide association study (GWAS), which established the important role of genetic influences in CAD [3–5].Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are important members of the noncoding RNA family and have become a hot topic in the field of life science research in recent years [6–9]. Studies over the past few years have found that multiple lncRNAs, namely, MIAT, ANRIL, lincRNA-p21, AC100865.1, OTTHUMT00000387022, NONHSAT112178, Novlnc6, MALAT1, LIPCAR, and SRA, have important functions in CAD [10]. However, the role of lncRNAs remains unclear.As an important member of the lncRNA family, lncRNA H19 has been reported to affect the proliferation and apoptosis of vascular cells, which directly or indirectly results in atherosclerosis [11]. The H19 gene is located in the human chromosome 11p15.5 region and is approximately 2300 bp long [12]. H19 is a typical paternally imprinted and maternally expressed gene. It is induced in the embryonic stage and decreases after birth but remains in skeletal muscle and the heart in adults. Recent research has shown that H19 is expressed in human atherosclerotic plaques and vascular calcification in a rat model [10–13], indicating that it may be involved in the development of CAD. Thus, we supposed that H19 may be involved in the development of CAD and H19 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) may be associated with the risk of CAD.We therefore performed a case-control study of the candidate polymorphisms of the H19 gene and CAD in a Chinese population. The aim of this study was to identify predictive biomarkers for CAD risk and establish an experimental basis to improve our understanding of the etiology and mechanisms of CAD.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Patients

The Ethical Committee of the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of the China Medical University approved this research project, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. All clinical investigations were conducted according to the principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki. We recruited 732 participants for this study, including 366 CAD patients and 366 matched controls. CAD diagnosis was based on electrocardiogram, echocardiography, blood tests, coronary angiography, and cardiac catheterization. The severity of CAD was assessed by coronary artery and Gensini score [14, 15]. Sex- and age-matched controls (n=366) were recruited from a community health screening program in the same area, Liaoning Province, China, from 2012 to 2014. Peripheral venous blood specimens were collected from participants and stored at −20°C until use.


### 2.2. SNP Selection and Genotyping

Genetic polymorphisms were screened using the HapMap database. Haploview 4.2 was used to select among the Chinese Beijing Han population an unbalanced R2 value of greater than 0.8 and a minimum allele frequency greater than 5%. F-SNP software (http://compbio.cs.queensu.ca/F-SNP/) was used to predict the possible functions of these selected sites. Lastly, we selected H19 tag SNPs according to the literature [8, 16]. The most common SNPs on the H19 gene were rs2735971, rs2839698, rs3024270, and rs217727.Genomic DNA was extracted using a previously published method and diluted to a working concentration of 20 ng L−1 for genotyping. Gene Company Ltd. (Shanghai, China) performed the assay using allele-specific PCR with KASPar (KASP) reagents (LGC Genomics, Hoddesdon, UK). For quality control, we repeatedly genotyped 10% of the total samples at once. The concordance rate of these repeated samples reached 100%, which demonstrated that the genotyping results were reliable. Five percent of each sample was used for sequencing.


### 2.3. Statistical Analysis

Between-group differences of sex as well as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium were compared using theχ2 test, and analysis of variance was performed for age variability. Multivariate logistic regression with adjustments for age and sex was used to show the association between selected gene polymorphisms and CAD risk. The haplotype of each gene was analyzed using SHEsis software [17]. All H19 gene polymorphisms identified in the best models of gene–gene interactions were calculated using MDR software (version 3.0.2). The combined effect of selected SNP–SNP interactions in the best model was determined by multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age and sex. The associations between gene polymorphisms and clinical parameters were examined using the χ2 test; the differences in the clinical parameters among the different polymorphism groups were compared using the t-test. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


## 2.1. Patients

The Ethical Committee of the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of the China Medical University approved this research project, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. All clinical investigations were conducted according to the principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki. We recruited 732 participants for this study, including 366 CAD patients and 366 matched controls. CAD diagnosis was based on electrocardiogram, echocardiography, blood tests, coronary angiography, and cardiac catheterization. The severity of CAD was assessed by coronary artery and Gensini score [14, 15]. Sex- and age-matched controls (n=366) were recruited from a community health screening program in the same area, Liaoning Province, China, from 2012 to 2014. Peripheral venous blood specimens were collected from participants and stored at −20°C until use.


## 2.2. SNP Selection and Genotyping

Genetic polymorphisms were screened using the HapMap database. Haploview 4.2 was used to select among the Chinese Beijing Han population an unbalanced R2 value of greater than 0.8 and a minimum allele frequency greater than 5%. F-SNP software (http://compbio.cs.queensu.ca/F-SNP/) was used to predict the possible functions of these selected sites. Lastly, we selected H19 tag SNPs according to the literature [8, 16]. The most common SNPs on the H19 gene were rs2735971, rs2839698, rs3024270, and rs217727.Genomic DNA was extracted using a previously published method and diluted to a working concentration of 20 ng L−1 for genotyping. Gene Company Ltd. (Shanghai, China) performed the assay using allele-specific PCR with KASPar (KASP) reagents (LGC Genomics, Hoddesdon, UK). For quality control, we repeatedly genotyped 10% of the total samples at once. The concordance rate of these repeated samples reached 100%, which demonstrated that the genotyping results were reliable. Five percent of each sample was used for sequencing.


## 2.3. Statistical Analysis

Between-group differences of sex as well as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium were compared using theχ2 test, and analysis of variance was performed for age variability. Multivariate logistic regression with adjustments for age and sex was used to show the association between selected gene polymorphisms and CAD risk. The haplotype of each gene was analyzed using SHEsis software [17]. All H19 gene polymorphisms identified in the best models of gene–gene interactions were calculated using MDR software (version 3.0.2). The combined effect of selected SNP–SNP interactions in the best model was determined by multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age and sex. The associations between gene polymorphisms and clinical parameters were examined using the χ2 test; the differences in the clinical parameters among the different polymorphism groups were compared using the t-test. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Baseline Characteristics of the Subjects

The demographic characteristics of CAD and control subjects are shown in Supplementary TableS1. There were no significant differences in age (57.4±8.8 vs. 57.1±7.6) or sex (male 75.7% vs. 76.0%) between the CAD and control groups.


### 3.2. Association between SNPs with lncRNA H19 Gene and CAD Risk

We genotyped all four polymorphisms of lncRNA H19 gene, but rs217727 polymorphism was the same wild-type CC in both CAD and control groups. This polymorphism was therefore not considered for subsequent analysis.We investigated the association between H19 polymorphisms and the risk of CAD (Table1). The three polymorphisms all conformed to the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. We also analyzed the effectiveness of the test. For rs2735971, 1–β=0.903 and α=0.041, which suggested significant associations. We found that individuals with H19 rs2735971 variant GA genotype had a 0.59-fold lower risk of CAD (P=0.003, OR=0.59, 95%confidenceintervalCI=0.42–0.83). The recessive and allele models also showed reduced risk of CAD by 0.61- and 0.68-fold, respectively (P=0.003, OR=0.61, 95%CI=0.44–0.84; P=0.008, OR=0.68, 95%CI=0.51–0.91, respectively). The H19 rs3024270 polymorphism was associated with a 0.65-fold lower risk of CAD in a recessive model (P=0.030, OR=0.65, 95%CI=0.44–0.96). However, we found no significant association between H19 rs2839698 polymorphisms and risk of CAD (P>0.05).Table 1
Association of lncRNA H19 polymorphisms and risk of CADa.
SNPs
NCBI Ref.
CON (%)
CAD (%)
CAD vs. CON
P
OR (95% CI)
H19 rs2735971
GG
26 (63.4)
211 (62.24)
239 (73.09)
1 (Ref.)
GA
14 (34.1)
118 (34.81)
79 (24.16)
0.003
0.59 (0.42-0.83)
AA
1 (2.4)
10 (2.95)
9 (2.75)
0.596
0.78 (0.31-1.96)
AA+GA vs. GG
0.003
0.61 (0.44-0.84)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.867
0.93 (0.37-2.31)
A vs. G
0.008
0.68 (0.51-0.91)
PHWEb
0.577
0.175
H19 rs2839698
CC
26 (57.8)
200 (55.10)
181 (50.99)
1 (Ref.)
CT
17 (38.3)
130 (35.81)
148 (41.69)
0.146
1.26 (0.92-1.72)
TT
3 (6.7)
33 (9.09)
26 (7.32)
0.583
0.86 (0.49-1.49)
CT + TT vs. CC
0.258
1.19 (0.88-1.59)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.397
0.79 (0.46-1.36)
T vs. C
0.601
1.06 (0.84-1.34)
PHWEb
0.922
0.081
H19 rs3024270
GG
5 (21.7)
120 (33.43)
120 (34.09)
1 (Ref.)
GC
9 (39.2)
162 (45.13)
179 (50.85)
0.586
1.10 (0.79-1.53)
CC
9 (39.2)
77 (21.44)
53 (15.06)
0.102
0.70 (0.45-1.07)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.856
0.97 (0.71-1.33)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.030
0.65 (0.44-0.96)
C vs. G
0.185
0.87 (0.70-1.07)
PHWEb
0.355
0.110
aLogistic regression adjusted by sex and age. bHardy–Weinberg equilibrium in the population. CAD: coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; CON: control; NCBI Ref.: number of references to studies of these polymorphisms in the Chinese Beijing Han population in the NCBI database; OR: odds ratio.


### 3.3. Association between lncRNA H19 Polymorphisms and CAD Risk Stratified by Individual Characteristics

To explore the effects of other factors on the association, we further performed stratified analysis according to different CAD factors (Table2). We considered that the absolute value of the stratified odds ratio (OR) closer to zero than the overall OR was more significant. In the dominant model, rs2735971 polymorphism showed a more significant association with a lower risk of CAD in the women (P=0.012, OR=0.40, 95%CI=0.19−0.82), nonsmoker (P=0.028, OR=0.54, 95%CI=0.31−0.94), nondrinker (P=0.028, OR=0.59, 95%CI=0.37−0.94), and younger age (P=0.017, OR=0.60, 95%CI=0.39−0.91) subgroups. The allele model of rs4102217 showed lower risk of CAD in the women (P=0.007, OR=0.43, 95%CI=0.23–0.79) and nondrinker (P=0.027, OR=0.63, 95%CI=0.42–0.95) subgroups. In addition, we found that in the dominant model, the H19 rs2839698 polymorphism was associated with an increased risk of CAD in the women (P=0.002, OR=2.62, 95%CI=1.40−4.88), elderly (P=0.015, OR=1.80, 95%CI=1.12−2.89), and nonsmoker (P=0.023, OR=1.76, 95%CI=1.08−2.87) subgroups. The allele model of rs2839698 showed an increased risk of CAD in women (P=0.004, OR=2.12, 95%CI=1.28–3.50) and in never smokers (P=0.024, OR=1.56, 95%CI=1.06–2.29). Moreover, in the recessive model, the H19 rs3024270 polymorphism demonstrated lower risk of CAD in the men (P=0.006, OR=0.53, 95%CI=0.34−0.83), younger age (P=0.033, OR=0.53, 95%CI=0.36−0.96), and ever smokers (P=0.009, OR=0.51, 95%CI=0.31−0.85) subgroups. The allele model of rs3024270 showed lower risk of CAD in men (P=0.035, OR=0.77, 95%CI=0.61–0.98) and smokers (P=0.050, OR=0.76, 95%CI=0.58–1.00).Table 2
Associations between lncRNA H19 polymorphisms and risk of acute coronary syndrome stratified by host characteristics.
Variables
Genotype
ACS vs. CON
Pa
OR (95% CI)
H19 rs2735971
Gender
Male
GG
176/162
1 (Ref.)
GA
65/93
0.024
0.64 (0.44-0.94)
AA
7/4
0.452
1.61 (0.46-5.62)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.045
0.68 (0.47-0.99)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.330
1.85 (0.54-6.41)
A vs. G
0.137
0.78 (0.66-1.08)
Female
GG
63/49
1 (Ref.)
GA
14/25
0.028
0.43 (0.20-0.91)
AA
2/6
0.101
0.25 (0.05-1.31)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.012
0.40 (0.19-0.82)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.174
0.32 (0.06-1.65)
A vs. G
0.007
0.43 (0.23-0.79)
Age
≦60
GG
143/121
1 (Ref.)
GA
51/76
0.010
0.57 (0.37-0.88)
AA
5/3
0.783
1.23 (0.28-5.34)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.017
0.60 (0.39-0.91)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.529
1.59 (0.37-6.80)
A vs. G
0.064
0.65 (0.41-1.03)
>60
GG
96/90
1 (Ref.)
GA
28/42
0.134
0.65 (0.37-1.14)
AA
4/7
0.444
0.60 (0.17-2.20)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.102
0.64 (0.37-1.09)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.525
0.66 (0.19-2.37)
A vs. G
0.056
0.70 (0.49-1.01)
Smoking
Ever smoker
GG
161/112
1 (Ref.)
GA
58/63
0.041
0.63 (0.41-0.98)
AA
5/4
0.903
0.92 (0.24-3.52)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.047
0.65 (0.43-0.99)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.926
1.07 (0.28-4.03)
A vs. G
0.087
0.72 (0.50-1.05)
Never smoker
GG
78/99
1 (Ref.)
GA
21/55
0.026
0.51 (0.28-0.92)
AA
4/6
0.675
0.76 (0.20-2.81)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.028
0.54 (0.31-0.94)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.901
0.92 (0.25-3.39)
A vs. G
0.055
0.63 (0.39-1.01)
Alcohol drinking
Drinker
GG
56/119
1 (Ref.)
GA
27/76
0.345
0.77 (0.45-1.33)
AA
4/4
0.314
2.08 (0.50-8.63)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.491
0.83 (0.49-1.41)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.256
2.27 (0.55-9.28)
A vs. G
0.806
0.95 (0.62-1.48)
Nondrinker
GG
183/92
1 (Ref.)
GA
52/42
0.041
0.60 (0.37-0.98)
AA
5/6
0.298
0.52 (0.15-1.79)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.028
0.59 (0.37-0.94)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.417
0.60 (0.18-2.05)
A vs. G
0.027
0.63 (0.42-0.95)
H19 rs2839698
Gender
Male
CC
140/139
1 (Ref.)
CT
111/109
0.934
1.02 (0.71-1.45)
TT
17/28
0.109
0.59 (0.31-1.13)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.669
0.93 (0.66-1.30)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.112
0.60 (0.32-1.13)
T vs. C
0.305
0.87 (0.67-1.13)
Female
CC
41/61
1 (Ref.)
CT
37/21
0.005
2.61 (1.34-5.09)
TT
9/5
0.097
2.68 (0.84-8.58)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.002
2.62 (1.40-4.88)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.284
1.86 (0.60-5.81)
T vs. C
0.004
2.12 (1.28-3.50)
Age
≦60
CC
113/111
1 (Ref.)
CT
80/84
0.710
0.93 (0.62-1.39)
TT
17/20
0.589
0.82 (0.41-1.66)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.640
0.91 (0.62-1.34)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.671
0.86 (0.44-1.70)
T vs. C
0.147
1.31 (0.91-1.89)
>60
CC
68/89
1 (Ref.)
CT
68/46
0.006
2.02 (1.22-3.34)
TT
9/13
0.997
1.00 (0.40-2.51)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.015
1.80 (1.12-2.89)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.511
0.74 (0.30-1.81)
T vs. C
0.603
0.92 (0.68-1.25)
Smoking
Ever smoker
CC
126/93
1 (Ref.)
CT
103/79
0.968
0.99 (0.66-1.48)
TT
14/20
0.062
0.49 (0.23-1.04)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.552
0.89 (0.61-1.31)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.073
0.52 (0.25-1.06)
T vs. C
0.221
0.83 (0.62-1.12)
Never smoker
CC
55/107
1 (Ref.)
CT
45/51
0.041
1.72 (1.02-2.90)
TT
12/13
0.172
1.81 (0.77-4.24)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.023
1.76 (1.08-2.87)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.332
1.51 (0.66-3.47)
T vs. C
0.024
1.56 (1.06-2.29)
Alcohol drinking
Drinker
CC
51/111
1 (Ref.)
CT
35/80
0.794
0.93 (0.55-1.57)
TT
6/21
0.262
0.58 (0.22-1.51)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.557
0.86 (0.53-1.41)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.302
0.61 (0.24-1.56)
T vs. C
0.352
0.83 (0.56-1.23)
Nondrinker
CC
130/50
1 (Ref.)
CT
113/50
0.094
1.45 (0.94-2.25)
TT
20/12
0.736
1.15 (0.52-2.53)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.106
1.40 (0.93-2.12)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.985
0.99 (0.47-2.12)
T vs. C
0.205
1.24 (0.89-1.72)
H19 rs3024270
Gender
Male
GG
91/83
1 (Ref.)
GC
139/125
0.943
1.01 (0.69-1.49)
CC
37/63
0.018
0.54 (0.33-0.90)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.394
0.85 (0.60-1.23)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.006
0.53 (0.34-0.83)
C vs. G
0.035
0.77 (0.61-0.98)
Female
GG
29/37
1 (Ref.)
GC
40/37
0.311
1.41 (0.73-2.74)
CC
16/14
0.385
1.47 (0.62-3.50)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.266
1.42 (0.77-2.64)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.610
1.23 (0.56-2.70)
C vs. G
0.289
1.26 (0.82-1.95)
Age
≦60
GG
74/69
1 (Ref.)
GC
102/91
0.914
1.02 (0.66-1.58)
CC
33/51
0.081
0.61 (0.35-1.06)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.526
0.88 (0.59-1.32)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.033
0.59 (0.36-0.96)
C vs. G
0.868
0.97 (0.70-1.35)
>60
GG
46/51
1 (Ref.)
GC
77/71
0.424
1.24 (0.73-2.11)
CC
20/26
0.883
0.95 (0.46-1.95)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.556
1.16 (0.71-1.92)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.621
0.85 (0.46-1.62)
C vs. G
0.106
0.79 (0.61-1.05)
Smoking
Ever smoker
GG
81/56
1 (Ref.)
GC
126/86
0.935
1.02 (0.65-1.59)
CC
34/45
0.029
0.53 (0.30-0.94)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.445
0.85 (0.56-1.29)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.009
0.51 (0.31-0.85)
C vs. G
0.050
0.76 (0.58-1.00)
Never smoker
GG
39/64
1 (Ref.)
GC
53/76
0.715
1.11 (0.65-1.89)
CC
19/32
0.992
1.00 (0.50-2.01)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.731
1.09 (0.66-1.81)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.805
0.92 (0.49-1.74)
C vs. G
0.920
1.02 (0.72-1.44)
Alcohol drinking
Drinker
GG
31/62
1 (Ref.)
GC
48/99
0.960
0.99 (0.57-1.72)
CC
13/46
0.135
0.56 (0.26-1.20)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.537
0.85 (0.50-1.44)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.092
0.56 (0.29-1.10)
C vs. G
0.171
0.78 (0.55-1.11)
Nondrinker
GG
89/58
1 (Ref.)
GC
131/63
0.281
1.29 (0.81-2.04)
CC
40/31
0.541
0.83 (0.46-1.50)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.539
1.14 (0.75-1.75)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.214
0.72 (0.42-1.21)
C vs. G
0.800
0.96 (0.72-1.29)
aLogistic regression adjusted by sex and age. ACS: acute coronary syndrome; CI: confidence interval; CON: control; OR: odds ratio.


### 3.4. Association between Haplotype of H19 SNPs and CAD Risk

Haplotypes with a frequency of less than 0.03 were excluded from analysis (Table3). Haplotype analysis suggested that rs2735971-rs2839698-rs3024270 A-C-C had a significantly lower risk of CAD (P=0.004, OR=0.61, 95%CI=0.43–0.86) than did the other haplotypes combined.Table 3
Association between haplotype of H19 gene and CAD risk.
Haplotype
Case (%)
Control (%)
P
OR (95% CI)
A C C
59.30 (9.65)
96.99 (14.96)
0.004
0.61 (0.43-0.86)
A C G
29.96 (48.77)
35.76 (5.51)
0.610
0.88 (0.53-1.45)
G C G
347.90 (56.63)
335.17 (51.68)
0.078
1.22 (0.98-1.52)
G T C
177.17 (28.84)
180.56 (27.84)
0.694
1.05 (0.82-1.34)
SHEsis software (http://analysis.bio-x.cn/) was used for analysis. CAD, coronary artery disease; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.


### 3.5. Epistatic Effects of Pairwise Interacting Factors on the Risks of CAD

We analyzed the epistatic effects between the pairs of the interacting SNPs and risk of CAD (Table4). For H19 rs2735971, the AA+AG genotype was found to be associated with a lower risk of CAD (P=0.017, OR=0.59, 95%CI=0.38–0.91), but only in the presence of CC genotype at H19 rs2839698. For H19 rs2735971, the dominant model was found to be associated with a decreased risk of CAD (P=0.021, OR=0.64, 95%CI=0.44–0.93), but only in the presence of the GC+GG genotype at H19 rs3024270. For H19 rs2839698, the CT+TT genotype was found to be associated with a lower risk of CAD (P=0.048, OR=8.61, 95%CI=1.02–73.03) in the presence of the CC genotype at H19 rs3024270. Conversely, for H19 rs3024270, the CC genotype was found to be associated with a lower risk of CAD (P=0.034, OR=0.61, 95%CI=0.39–0.96) in the presence of the CT+TT genotype at H19 rs2839689.Table 4
Epistatic effect of pair-wise interacting factors on the risks of CAD.
Interacted pairwise SNPs
Comparison
Subset
CAD vs. CON
P
OR (95% CI)
H19 rs2735971 interacted with H19 rs2839698
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA vs. GG
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT
0.131
0.65 (0.37-1.14)
H19 rs2839698 CC
0.017
0.59 (0.38-0.91)
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT vs. CC
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA
0.746
1.10 (0.61-2.01)
H19 rs2735971 GG
0.673
1.08 (0.75-1.58)
H19 rs2735971 interacted with H19 rs3024270
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA vs. GG
H19 rs3024270 CC
0.436
0.74 (0.35-1.58)
H19 rs3024270 GC+GG
0.021
0.64 (0.44-0.93)
H19 rs3024270 CC vs. GC+GG
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA
0.294
0.71 (0.37-1.35)
H19 rs2735971 GG
0.072
0.61 (0.36-1.04)
H19 rs2839698 interacted with H19 rs3024270
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT vs. CC
H19 rs3024270 CC
0.048
8.61 (1.02-73.03)
H19 rs3024270 GC+GG
0.071
1.37 (0.97-1.93)
H19 rs3024270 CC vs. GC+GG
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT
0.034
0.61 (0.39-0.96)
H19 rs2839698 CC
0.051
0.13 (0.02-1.01)
All tests were adjusted by age and sex. Statistically significant associations are highlighted in bold (P<0.05). CAD: coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; CON: control; OR: odds ratio; SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism.


### 3.6. Multidimensional Analysis of SNP–SNP Interactions between H19 and CAD

First, we used multiple logistic regression analysis to investigate interactions between H19 SNPs and CAD risk and found that rs2839698 interacted with smoking (Table5). Next, in order to explore the locus-locus interaction of H19 and CAD, we used multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) software to verify the best model for the positive interaction, as shown in Table 6. MDR analyses suggested that the best interaction model was the three-factor model including H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking; the maximum test accuracy was 0.6979, and the maximum cross-validation consistency was 10/10. Furthermore, we considered H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking as a risk genotype. According to the number of risks, patients were divided into four groups as follows: 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk genotypes as group 1, group 2, group 3, and group 4, respectively. Adjusting by sex and age, the ORs were 2.32 (1.46–3.70), 1.70 (1.03–2.81), and 0.89 (0.50–1.58). Due to Ptrend=0.235, we could only observe a tendency for H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking interaction with the risk of CAD (Table 7).Table 5
Interactions between three H19 polymorphisms and environmental factors in CAD risk.
Smoking
Drinking
Never smoker
Ever smoker
Nondrinker
Drinker
H19 rs2735971
GG
Case/control
26/61
63/67
57/48
31/80
OR (95% CI)
1 (Ref.)
2.29 (1.29-4.09)
1 (Ref.)
0.33 (0.19-0.57)
GA+AA
Case/control
78/99
161/112
183/92
56/119
OR (95% CI)
1.92 (1.11-3.34)
3.51 (2.08-5.93)
1.68 (1.06-2.65)
0.40 (0.24-0.65)
Pinteraction=0.581
Pinteraction=0.346
OR=0.82, 95%CI=0.41‐1.65
OR=0.731, 95%CI=0.35‐1.44
H19 rs2839698
CC
Case/control
55/107
126/93
130/89
51/111
OR (95% CI)
1(Ref.)
2.64 (1.73-4.02)
1(Ref.)
0.32 (0.21-0.48)
CT+TT
Case/control
57/64
117/99
133/62
41/101
OR (95% CI)
1.73 (1.07-2.81)
2.30 (1.51-3.50)
1.47 (0.98-2.20)
0.28 (0.18-0.44)
Pinteraction=0.027
Pinteraction=0.147
OR=0.50, 95%CI=0.27‐0.92
OR=0.62, 95%CI=0.33‐1.18
H19 rs3024270
GC+GG
Case/control
19/32
34/45
40/31
13/46
OR (95% CI)
1 (Ref.)
1.27 (0.62-2.62)
1 (Ref.)
0.22 (0.10-0.48)
CC
Case/control
92/140
207/142
220/121
79/161
OR (95% CI)
1.11 (0.59-2.07)
2.46 (1.34-4.50)
1.41 (0.84-2.37)
0.38 (0.22-0.65)
Pinteraction=0.171
Pinteraction=0.600
OR=1.75, 95%CI=0.78‐3.92
OR=1.26, 95%CI=0.53‐2.96
Pinteraction via logistic regression adjusted by sex and age. CAD: coronary artery disease; CON: control.Table 6
Gene–gene interaction models for H19 three polymorphisms for acute coronary syndrome risk by MDR analysis.
Model
Training Bal. Acc.
Testing Bal. Acc.
Sign test (P)
CV consistency
P for permutation test
Drinking
0.6598
0.6601
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
Smoking-drinking
0.6790
0.6789
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
H19 rs2839698-smoking-drinkinga
0.6995
0.6979
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
H19 rs2839698-H19 rs3024270-smoking-drinking
0.7054
0.6900
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
The best model, i.e., that with the maximum testing accuracy and maximum CV consistency, was selected.aIn this study, the best interaction model was the three-factor model of H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking. CV consistency: cross-validation consistency; MDR: multifactor dimensionality reduction.Table 7
Cumulative effect of the three interacting factors of H19 rs2735971 SNP-smoking-drinking on acute coronary syndrome risk.
No. of interacting genotypes
Total population
Cases/controls
Pa
OR (95% CI)
0
49/74
1 (Ref.)
1
138/91
<0.01
2.32 (1.46-3.70)
2
133/121
0.039
1.70 (1.03-2.81)
3
46/80
0.693
0.89 (0.50-1.58)
Ptrend=0.235
aAdjusted by sex and age. CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism.


### 3.7. Association between H19 Polymorphisms and Clinical Parameters

As shown in Supplemental TableS2, a dominant model was selected for H19 rs2735971 and rs2839698 polymorphism while a recessive model was chosen for rs3024270 polymorphism. The results indicated that triacylglycerides were lower in the rs2735971 mutate-type (GA+AA) group than in the wild-type group (1.62±1.11 vs. 2.21±2.21; P=0.002). Moreover, wild-type low-density lipoprotein levels were lower for rs3024270 (2.95±0.98 vs. 2.64±1.05; P=0.040). However, no significant association was found with high blood pressure, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, hyperlipidemia, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, creatinine, urea nitrogen, or trioxypurines among these three polymorphisms. In addition, we analyzed the association of H19 SNPs with the severity of CAD. We did not find any significant associations between the number of coronary artery lesion branches and the three polymorphisms, while under the recessive genetic model of rs3024270, the Gensini score was significantly decreased in the mutant CC genotype than in the GG+GC genotype (45.62±24.49 vs. 54.27±36.29; P=0.048).


## 3.1. Baseline Characteristics of the Subjects

The demographic characteristics of CAD and control subjects are shown in Supplementary TableS1. There were no significant differences in age (57.4±8.8 vs. 57.1±7.6) or sex (male 75.7% vs. 76.0%) between the CAD and control groups.


## 3.2. Association between SNPs with lncRNA H19 Gene and CAD Risk

We genotyped all four polymorphisms of lncRNA H19 gene, but rs217727 polymorphism was the same wild-type CC in both CAD and control groups. This polymorphism was therefore not considered for subsequent analysis.We investigated the association between H19 polymorphisms and the risk of CAD (Table1). The three polymorphisms all conformed to the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. We also analyzed the effectiveness of the test. For rs2735971, 1–β=0.903 and α=0.041, which suggested significant associations. We found that individuals with H19 rs2735971 variant GA genotype had a 0.59-fold lower risk of CAD (P=0.003, OR=0.59, 95%confidenceintervalCI=0.42–0.83). The recessive and allele models also showed reduced risk of CAD by 0.61- and 0.68-fold, respectively (P=0.003, OR=0.61, 95%CI=0.44–0.84; P=0.008, OR=0.68, 95%CI=0.51–0.91, respectively). The H19 rs3024270 polymorphism was associated with a 0.65-fold lower risk of CAD in a recessive model (P=0.030, OR=0.65, 95%CI=0.44–0.96). However, we found no significant association between H19 rs2839698 polymorphisms and risk of CAD (P>0.05).Table 1
Association of lncRNA H19 polymorphisms and risk of CADa.
SNPs
NCBI Ref.
CON (%)
CAD (%)
CAD vs. CON
P
OR (95% CI)
H19 rs2735971
GG
26 (63.4)
211 (62.24)
239 (73.09)
1 (Ref.)
GA
14 (34.1)
118 (34.81)
79 (24.16)
0.003
0.59 (0.42-0.83)
AA
1 (2.4)
10 (2.95)
9 (2.75)
0.596
0.78 (0.31-1.96)
AA+GA vs. GG
0.003
0.61 (0.44-0.84)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.867
0.93 (0.37-2.31)
A vs. G
0.008
0.68 (0.51-0.91)
PHWEb
0.577
0.175
H19 rs2839698
CC
26 (57.8)
200 (55.10)
181 (50.99)
1 (Ref.)
CT
17 (38.3)
130 (35.81)
148 (41.69)
0.146
1.26 (0.92-1.72)
TT
3 (6.7)
33 (9.09)
26 (7.32)
0.583
0.86 (0.49-1.49)
CT + TT vs. CC
0.258
1.19 (0.88-1.59)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.397
0.79 (0.46-1.36)
T vs. C
0.601
1.06 (0.84-1.34)
PHWEb
0.922
0.081
H19 rs3024270
GG
5 (21.7)
120 (33.43)
120 (34.09)
1 (Ref.)
GC
9 (39.2)
162 (45.13)
179 (50.85)
0.586
1.10 (0.79-1.53)
CC
9 (39.2)
77 (21.44)
53 (15.06)
0.102
0.70 (0.45-1.07)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.856
0.97 (0.71-1.33)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.030
0.65 (0.44-0.96)
C vs. G
0.185
0.87 (0.70-1.07)
PHWEb
0.355
0.110
aLogistic regression adjusted by sex and age. bHardy–Weinberg equilibrium in the population. CAD: coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; CON: control; NCBI Ref.: number of references to studies of these polymorphisms in the Chinese Beijing Han population in the NCBI database; OR: odds ratio.


## 3.3. Association between lncRNA H19 Polymorphisms and CAD Risk Stratified by Individual Characteristics

To explore the effects of other factors on the association, we further performed stratified analysis according to different CAD factors (Table2). We considered that the absolute value of the stratified odds ratio (OR) closer to zero than the overall OR was more significant. In the dominant model, rs2735971 polymorphism showed a more significant association with a lower risk of CAD in the women (P=0.012, OR=0.40, 95%CI=0.19−0.82), nonsmoker (P=0.028, OR=0.54, 95%CI=0.31−0.94), nondrinker (P=0.028, OR=0.59, 95%CI=0.37−0.94), and younger age (P=0.017, OR=0.60, 95%CI=0.39−0.91) subgroups. The allele model of rs4102217 showed lower risk of CAD in the women (P=0.007, OR=0.43, 95%CI=0.23–0.79) and nondrinker (P=0.027, OR=0.63, 95%CI=0.42–0.95) subgroups. In addition, we found that in the dominant model, the H19 rs2839698 polymorphism was associated with an increased risk of CAD in the women (P=0.002, OR=2.62, 95%CI=1.40−4.88), elderly (P=0.015, OR=1.80, 95%CI=1.12−2.89), and nonsmoker (P=0.023, OR=1.76, 95%CI=1.08−2.87) subgroups. The allele model of rs2839698 showed an increased risk of CAD in women (P=0.004, OR=2.12, 95%CI=1.28–3.50) and in never smokers (P=0.024, OR=1.56, 95%CI=1.06–2.29). Moreover, in the recessive model, the H19 rs3024270 polymorphism demonstrated lower risk of CAD in the men (P=0.006, OR=0.53, 95%CI=0.34−0.83), younger age (P=0.033, OR=0.53, 95%CI=0.36−0.96), and ever smokers (P=0.009, OR=0.51, 95%CI=0.31−0.85) subgroups. The allele model of rs3024270 showed lower risk of CAD in men (P=0.035, OR=0.77, 95%CI=0.61–0.98) and smokers (P=0.050, OR=0.76, 95%CI=0.58–1.00).Table 2
Associations between lncRNA H19 polymorphisms and risk of acute coronary syndrome stratified by host characteristics.
Variables
Genotype
ACS vs. CON
Pa
OR (95% CI)
H19 rs2735971
Gender
Male
GG
176/162
1 (Ref.)
GA
65/93
0.024
0.64 (0.44-0.94)
AA
7/4
0.452
1.61 (0.46-5.62)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.045
0.68 (0.47-0.99)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.330
1.85 (0.54-6.41)
A vs. G
0.137
0.78 (0.66-1.08)
Female
GG
63/49
1 (Ref.)
GA
14/25
0.028
0.43 (0.20-0.91)
AA
2/6
0.101
0.25 (0.05-1.31)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.012
0.40 (0.19-0.82)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.174
0.32 (0.06-1.65)
A vs. G
0.007
0.43 (0.23-0.79)
Age
≦60
GG
143/121
1 (Ref.)
GA
51/76
0.010
0.57 (0.37-0.88)
AA
5/3
0.783
1.23 (0.28-5.34)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.017
0.60 (0.39-0.91)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.529
1.59 (0.37-6.80)
A vs. G
0.064
0.65 (0.41-1.03)
>60
GG
96/90
1 (Ref.)
GA
28/42
0.134
0.65 (0.37-1.14)
AA
4/7
0.444
0.60 (0.17-2.20)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.102
0.64 (0.37-1.09)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.525
0.66 (0.19-2.37)
A vs. G
0.056
0.70 (0.49-1.01)
Smoking
Ever smoker
GG
161/112
1 (Ref.)
GA
58/63
0.041
0.63 (0.41-0.98)
AA
5/4
0.903
0.92 (0.24-3.52)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.047
0.65 (0.43-0.99)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.926
1.07 (0.28-4.03)
A vs. G
0.087
0.72 (0.50-1.05)
Never smoker
GG
78/99
1 (Ref.)
GA
21/55
0.026
0.51 (0.28-0.92)
AA
4/6
0.675
0.76 (0.20-2.81)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.028
0.54 (0.31-0.94)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.901
0.92 (0.25-3.39)
A vs. G
0.055
0.63 (0.39-1.01)
Alcohol drinking
Drinker
GG
56/119
1 (Ref.)
GA
27/76
0.345
0.77 (0.45-1.33)
AA
4/4
0.314
2.08 (0.50-8.63)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.491
0.83 (0.49-1.41)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.256
2.27 (0.55-9.28)
A vs. G
0.806
0.95 (0.62-1.48)
Nondrinker
GG
183/92
1 (Ref.)
GA
52/42
0.041
0.60 (0.37-0.98)
AA
5/6
0.298
0.52 (0.15-1.79)
GA+AA vs. GG
0.028
0.59 (0.37-0.94)
AA vs. GA+GG
0.417
0.60 (0.18-2.05)
A vs. G
0.027
0.63 (0.42-0.95)
H19 rs2839698
Gender
Male
CC
140/139
1 (Ref.)
CT
111/109
0.934
1.02 (0.71-1.45)
TT
17/28
0.109
0.59 (0.31-1.13)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.669
0.93 (0.66-1.30)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.112
0.60 (0.32-1.13)
T vs. C
0.305
0.87 (0.67-1.13)
Female
CC
41/61
1 (Ref.)
CT
37/21
0.005
2.61 (1.34-5.09)
TT
9/5
0.097
2.68 (0.84-8.58)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.002
2.62 (1.40-4.88)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.284
1.86 (0.60-5.81)
T vs. C
0.004
2.12 (1.28-3.50)
Age
≦60
CC
113/111
1 (Ref.)
CT
80/84
0.710
0.93 (0.62-1.39)
TT
17/20
0.589
0.82 (0.41-1.66)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.640
0.91 (0.62-1.34)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.671
0.86 (0.44-1.70)
T vs. C
0.147
1.31 (0.91-1.89)
>60
CC
68/89
1 (Ref.)
CT
68/46
0.006
2.02 (1.22-3.34)
TT
9/13
0.997
1.00 (0.40-2.51)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.015
1.80 (1.12-2.89)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.511
0.74 (0.30-1.81)
T vs. C
0.603
0.92 (0.68-1.25)
Smoking
Ever smoker
CC
126/93
1 (Ref.)
CT
103/79
0.968
0.99 (0.66-1.48)
TT
14/20
0.062
0.49 (0.23-1.04)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.552
0.89 (0.61-1.31)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.073
0.52 (0.25-1.06)
T vs. C
0.221
0.83 (0.62-1.12)
Never smoker
CC
55/107
1 (Ref.)
CT
45/51
0.041
1.72 (1.02-2.90)
TT
12/13
0.172
1.81 (0.77-4.24)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.023
1.76 (1.08-2.87)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.332
1.51 (0.66-3.47)
T vs. C
0.024
1.56 (1.06-2.29)
Alcohol drinking
Drinker
CC
51/111
1 (Ref.)
CT
35/80
0.794
0.93 (0.55-1.57)
TT
6/21
0.262
0.58 (0.22-1.51)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.557
0.86 (0.53-1.41)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.302
0.61 (0.24-1.56)
T vs. C
0.352
0.83 (0.56-1.23)
Nondrinker
CC
130/50
1 (Ref.)
CT
113/50
0.094
1.45 (0.94-2.25)
TT
20/12
0.736
1.15 (0.52-2.53)
CT+TT vs. CC
0.106
1.40 (0.93-2.12)
TT vs. CT+CC
0.985
0.99 (0.47-2.12)
T vs. C
0.205
1.24 (0.89-1.72)
H19 rs3024270
Gender
Male
GG
91/83
1 (Ref.)
GC
139/125
0.943
1.01 (0.69-1.49)
CC
37/63
0.018
0.54 (0.33-0.90)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.394
0.85 (0.60-1.23)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.006
0.53 (0.34-0.83)
C vs. G
0.035
0.77 (0.61-0.98)
Female
GG
29/37
1 (Ref.)
GC
40/37
0.311
1.41 (0.73-2.74)
CC
16/14
0.385
1.47 (0.62-3.50)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.266
1.42 (0.77-2.64)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.610
1.23 (0.56-2.70)
C vs. G
0.289
1.26 (0.82-1.95)
Age
≦60
GG
74/69
1 (Ref.)
GC
102/91
0.914
1.02 (0.66-1.58)
CC
33/51
0.081
0.61 (0.35-1.06)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.526
0.88 (0.59-1.32)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.033
0.59 (0.36-0.96)
C vs. G
0.868
0.97 (0.70-1.35)
>60
GG
46/51
1 (Ref.)
GC
77/71
0.424
1.24 (0.73-2.11)
CC
20/26
0.883
0.95 (0.46-1.95)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.556
1.16 (0.71-1.92)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.621
0.85 (0.46-1.62)
C vs. G
0.106
0.79 (0.61-1.05)
Smoking
Ever smoker
GG
81/56
1 (Ref.)
GC
126/86
0.935
1.02 (0.65-1.59)
CC
34/45
0.029
0.53 (0.30-0.94)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.445
0.85 (0.56-1.29)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.009
0.51 (0.31-0.85)
C vs. G
0.050
0.76 (0.58-1.00)
Never smoker
GG
39/64
1 (Ref.)
GC
53/76
0.715
1.11 (0.65-1.89)
CC
19/32
0.992
1.00 (0.50-2.01)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.731
1.09 (0.66-1.81)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.805
0.92 (0.49-1.74)
C vs. G
0.920
1.02 (0.72-1.44)
Alcohol drinking
Drinker
GG
31/62
1 (Ref.)
GC
48/99
0.960
0.99 (0.57-1.72)
CC
13/46
0.135
0.56 (0.26-1.20)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.537
0.85 (0.50-1.44)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.092
0.56 (0.29-1.10)
C vs. G
0.171
0.78 (0.55-1.11)
Nondrinker
GG
89/58
1 (Ref.)
GC
131/63
0.281
1.29 (0.81-2.04)
CC
40/31
0.541
0.83 (0.46-1.50)
CC+GC vs. GG
0.539
1.14 (0.75-1.75)
CC vs. GC+GG
0.214
0.72 (0.42-1.21)
C vs. G
0.800
0.96 (0.72-1.29)
aLogistic regression adjusted by sex and age. ACS: acute coronary syndrome; CI: confidence interval; CON: control; OR: odds ratio.


## 3.4. Association between Haplotype of H19 SNPs and CAD Risk

Haplotypes with a frequency of less than 0.03 were excluded from analysis (Table3). Haplotype analysis suggested that rs2735971-rs2839698-rs3024270 A-C-C had a significantly lower risk of CAD (P=0.004, OR=0.61, 95%CI=0.43–0.86) than did the other haplotypes combined.Table 3
Association between haplotype of H19 gene and CAD risk.
Haplotype
Case (%)
Control (%)
P
OR (95% CI)
A C C
59.30 (9.65)
96.99 (14.96)
0.004
0.61 (0.43-0.86)
A C G
29.96 (48.77)
35.76 (5.51)
0.610
0.88 (0.53-1.45)
G C G
347.90 (56.63)
335.17 (51.68)
0.078
1.22 (0.98-1.52)
G T C
177.17 (28.84)
180.56 (27.84)
0.694
1.05 (0.82-1.34)
SHEsis software (http://analysis.bio-x.cn/) was used for analysis. CAD, coronary artery disease; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.


## 3.5. Epistatic Effects of Pairwise Interacting Factors on the Risks of CAD

We analyzed the epistatic effects between the pairs of the interacting SNPs and risk of CAD (Table4). For H19 rs2735971, the AA+AG genotype was found to be associated with a lower risk of CAD (P=0.017, OR=0.59, 95%CI=0.38–0.91), but only in the presence of CC genotype at H19 rs2839698. For H19 rs2735971, the dominant model was found to be associated with a decreased risk of CAD (P=0.021, OR=0.64, 95%CI=0.44–0.93), but only in the presence of the GC+GG genotype at H19 rs3024270. For H19 rs2839698, the CT+TT genotype was found to be associated with a lower risk of CAD (P=0.048, OR=8.61, 95%CI=1.02–73.03) in the presence of the CC genotype at H19 rs3024270. Conversely, for H19 rs3024270, the CC genotype was found to be associated with a lower risk of CAD (P=0.034, OR=0.61, 95%CI=0.39–0.96) in the presence of the CT+TT genotype at H19 rs2839689.Table 4
Epistatic effect of pair-wise interacting factors on the risks of CAD.
Interacted pairwise SNPs
Comparison
Subset
CAD vs. CON
P
OR (95% CI)
H19 rs2735971 interacted with H19 rs2839698
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA vs. GG
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT
0.131
0.65 (0.37-1.14)
H19 rs2839698 CC
0.017
0.59 (0.38-0.91)
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT vs. CC
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA
0.746
1.10 (0.61-2.01)
H19 rs2735971 GG
0.673
1.08 (0.75-1.58)
H19 rs2735971 interacted with H19 rs3024270
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA vs. GG
H19 rs3024270 CC
0.436
0.74 (0.35-1.58)
H19 rs3024270 GC+GG
0.021
0.64 (0.44-0.93)
H19 rs3024270 CC vs. GC+GG
H19 rs2735971 AA+GA
0.294
0.71 (0.37-1.35)
H19 rs2735971 GG
0.072
0.61 (0.36-1.04)
H19 rs2839698 interacted with H19 rs3024270
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT vs. CC
H19 rs3024270 CC
0.048
8.61 (1.02-73.03)
H19 rs3024270 GC+GG
0.071
1.37 (0.97-1.93)
H19 rs3024270 CC vs. GC+GG
H19 rs2839698 CT+TT
0.034
0.61 (0.39-0.96)
H19 rs2839698 CC
0.051
0.13 (0.02-1.01)
All tests were adjusted by age and sex. Statistically significant associations are highlighted in bold (P<0.05). CAD: coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; CON: control; OR: odds ratio; SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism.


## 3.6. Multidimensional Analysis of SNP–SNP Interactions between H19 and CAD

First, we used multiple logistic regression analysis to investigate interactions between H19 SNPs and CAD risk and found that rs2839698 interacted with smoking (Table5). Next, in order to explore the locus-locus interaction of H19 and CAD, we used multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) software to verify the best model for the positive interaction, as shown in Table 6. MDR analyses suggested that the best interaction model was the three-factor model including H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking; the maximum test accuracy was 0.6979, and the maximum cross-validation consistency was 10/10. Furthermore, we considered H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking as a risk genotype. According to the number of risks, patients were divided into four groups as follows: 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk genotypes as group 1, group 2, group 3, and group 4, respectively. Adjusting by sex and age, the ORs were 2.32 (1.46–3.70), 1.70 (1.03–2.81), and 0.89 (0.50–1.58). Due to Ptrend=0.235, we could only observe a tendency for H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking interaction with the risk of CAD (Table 7).Table 5
Interactions between three H19 polymorphisms and environmental factors in CAD risk.
Smoking
Drinking
Never smoker
Ever smoker
Nondrinker
Drinker
H19 rs2735971
GG
Case/control
26/61
63/67
57/48
31/80
OR (95% CI)
1 (Ref.)
2.29 (1.29-4.09)
1 (Ref.)
0.33 (0.19-0.57)
GA+AA
Case/control
78/99
161/112
183/92
56/119
OR (95% CI)
1.92 (1.11-3.34)
3.51 (2.08-5.93)
1.68 (1.06-2.65)
0.40 (0.24-0.65)
Pinteraction=0.581
Pinteraction=0.346
OR=0.82, 95%CI=0.41‐1.65
OR=0.731, 95%CI=0.35‐1.44
H19 rs2839698
CC
Case/control
55/107
126/93
130/89
51/111
OR (95% CI)
1(Ref.)
2.64 (1.73-4.02)
1(Ref.)
0.32 (0.21-0.48)
CT+TT
Case/control
57/64
117/99
133/62
41/101
OR (95% CI)
1.73 (1.07-2.81)
2.30 (1.51-3.50)
1.47 (0.98-2.20)
0.28 (0.18-0.44)
Pinteraction=0.027
Pinteraction=0.147
OR=0.50, 95%CI=0.27‐0.92
OR=0.62, 95%CI=0.33‐1.18
H19 rs3024270
GC+GG
Case/control
19/32
34/45
40/31
13/46
OR (95% CI)
1 (Ref.)
1.27 (0.62-2.62)
1 (Ref.)
0.22 (0.10-0.48)
CC
Case/control
92/140
207/142
220/121
79/161
OR (95% CI)
1.11 (0.59-2.07)
2.46 (1.34-4.50)
1.41 (0.84-2.37)
0.38 (0.22-0.65)
Pinteraction=0.171
Pinteraction=0.600
OR=1.75, 95%CI=0.78‐3.92
OR=1.26, 95%CI=0.53‐2.96
Pinteraction via logistic regression adjusted by sex and age. CAD: coronary artery disease; CON: control.Table 6
Gene–gene interaction models for H19 three polymorphisms for acute coronary syndrome risk by MDR analysis.
Model
Training Bal. Acc.
Testing Bal. Acc.
Sign test (P)
CV consistency
P for permutation test
Drinking
0.6598
0.6601
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
Smoking-drinking
0.6790
0.6789
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
H19 rs2839698-smoking-drinkinga
0.6995
0.6979
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
H19 rs2839698-H19 rs3024270-smoking-drinking
0.7054
0.6900
10 (0.0010)
10/10
0.0000-0.0010
The best model, i.e., that with the maximum testing accuracy and maximum CV consistency, was selected.aIn this study, the best interaction model was the three-factor model of H19 rs2839698 polymorphism-smoking-drinking. CV consistency: cross-validation consistency; MDR: multifactor dimensionality reduction.Table 7
Cumulative effect of the three interacting factors of H19 rs2735971 SNP-smoking-drinking on acute coronary syndrome risk.
No. of interacting genotypes
Total population
Cases/controls
Pa
OR (95% CI)
0
49/74
1 (Ref.)
1
138/91
<0.01
2.32 (1.46-3.70)
2
133/121
0.039
1.70 (1.03-2.81)
3
46/80
0.693
0.89 (0.50-1.58)
Ptrend=0.235
aAdjusted by sex and age. CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism.


## 3.7. Association between H19 Polymorphisms and Clinical Parameters

As shown in Supplemental TableS2, a dominant model was selected for H19 rs2735971 and rs2839698 polymorphism while a recessive model was chosen for rs3024270 polymorphism. The results indicated that triacylglycerides were lower in the rs2735971 mutate-type (GA+AA) group than in the wild-type group (1.62±1.11 vs. 2.21±2.21; P=0.002). Moreover, wild-type low-density lipoprotein levels were lower for rs3024270 (2.95±0.98 vs. 2.64±1.05; P=0.040). However, no significant association was found with high blood pressure, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, hyperlipidemia, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, creatinine, urea nitrogen, or trioxypurines among these three polymorphisms. In addition, we analyzed the association of H19 SNPs with the severity of CAD. We did not find any significant associations between the number of coronary artery lesion branches and the three polymorphisms, while under the recessive genetic model of rs3024270, the Gensini score was significantly decreased in the mutant CC genotype than in the GG+GC genotype (45.62±24.49 vs. 54.27±36.29; P=0.048).


## 4. Discussion

TheH19 gene, which contains 5 exons and 3 introns, is located at 11p15.5. This chromosome has multiple binding sites for the transcription factor CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein family [18, 19]. As an lncRNA, H19 lacks an open reading frame and is not a coding protein; its end product is an RNA sequence [20]. However, it can still play a role as a regulatory RNA and participate in coding microRNAs.Evidence shows that H19 is closely related to cardiovascular diseases. Kim et al. [10, 11, 13, 18–21] suggested that the H19 gene is involved in vascular development, differentiation, and phenotype transformation of vascular smooth muscle. Further, Han et al. found that the H19 gene is highly expressed in human atherosclerotic plaques [13], which may suggest that the risk factors leading to atherosclerosis, such as hyperhomocysteinemia, can significantly increase the expression of H19 in blood vessels [22]. A recent study found that the target miR-103/107 of H19 by Fas-associated with death domain protein participates in the regulation of myocardial infarction [23]. All of these findings suggest that H19 might be closely related with CAD.In recent years, an increasing number of studies have investigatedH19 gene polymorphisms, which mainly include rs217727, rs2967051, rs2735971, rs2839698, and rs3024270 [24]. Therefore, we hypothesized that H19 polymorphism may be associated with the risk of CAD. To validate our hypothesis, in this study, we assessed the relationship between three SNP loci (rs2735971, rs2839698, and rs3024270) and risk of CAD.Rs2735971 is a mutation of A/G in the upstream multidrug-resistant region of H19 and prominent in Chinese Han and the Chaoxian (Korean) populations, which makes it a reliable genetic marker [25, 26]. Our study showed that rs2735971 polymorphism significantly reduced the risk of CAD in different genetic models, suggesting that it could be a protective factor against CAD. rs2839698 is a C/T variation within the exon region. Some studies have confirmed that the SNP locus may take part in changing the secondary structure of H19 and could not only abolish the targeting effect between H19 and hsa-miR-24-1-5p, hsa-miR-4486, hsa-miR-566, and hsa-miR-24-2-5p but also increase the number of binding sites of H19 and hsa-miR-612, hsa-miR-5189, hsa-miR1285-3p, and hsa-miR-3187-5p [27]. Moreover, rs2839698 is closely associated with the risk of many kinds of malignant tumors. For instance, Li et al. found that rs2839698 significantly increased the risk of colon cancer in a Chinese Han population and is remarkably associated with the grade of malignancy in colon cancer [27]. Yang et al. suggested that rs2839698 polymorphisms can increase the risk of gastric cancer and that the H19 expression levels in the peripheral blood of CT and TT carriers are significantly higher than those of CC genotype individuals [17]. However, it has been found that the CT genotype of rs2839698 polymorphism could reduce the risk of bladder cancer according to the research of Verhaegh et al. [28]. Our study did not find an association between rs2839698 and CAD in the overall population analysis. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found that the rs2839698 polymorphism decreased the risk of CAD in the women, elderly, and never smoker subgroups, which suggests that the SNPs can be biomarkers in certain subgroups. We suppose that this result may relate to the expression of H19, which is activated by rs2839698. rs3024270 is a mutation of C/G in the intron region. Li et al. analyzed the incidence of colorectal cancer in Chinese Han patients but found no correlation between rs3024270 and the risk of colon cancer [17]. Our study found that the recessive model reduced the risk of CAD in overall population analysis. In further stratified analysis, we found that the risk of CAD was reduced by rs3024270 polymorphism in the men, younger age, and smoker subgroups, suggesting that rs3024270 polymorphism might be a protective factor for CAD risk in certain subgroups.The pathogenesis of CAD has not yet been fully elucidated. The common view in the current academic community is that CAD is probably a polygenic heredity disease affected by multiple genetic and environmental factors [29]. We used logistic regression analysis and MDR software analysis to study the relationship between the SNP–SNP and SNP–environment interactions of H19 and the risk of CAD, respectively. MDR software [30] was used to calculate the best prediction model, and the prediction error of the training samples was measured by the test sample (the rest of the sample), while evaluation of the extent of the cross-validation consistency was used. Thus, we chose the combination model with the maximum test accuracy and the maximum cross-validation consistency among the results. The interactions between multiple SNP loci in H19 with environmental factors were further analyzed. Our study found that H19 rs2839698 polymorphism interacted with smoking, and further analysis found that this SNP combined with smoking and drinking made the best model for predicting the risk of CAD. Moreover, the three polymorphisms interacted with each other in epistatic effect analysis. These results all indicate that a combination of biomarkers provides a better prediction of the risk of CAD.In our study, we found that the contribution of the dominant model of H19 rs2735971 polymorphism to the disease was protective. In addition, carriers with this SNP genotype were less likely to have hypertriglyceridemia, which is consistent with our previous risk studies. The contribution of the recessive model of H19 rs3024270 polymorphism to the disease also demonstrated a protective tendency (although it did not reach statistical significance). In a previous study of a relationship between the polymorphism and the clinical features, we found that the patients with the variant type were less likely to develop hypo-high-density lipoprotein cholesterolemia. We did not obtain a positive result in the analysis of clinical features and H19 rs2839698 polymorphism, which suggests that this polymorphism might not influence the clinical features of CAD.In addition, we used the number of coronary arteries and Gensini score to assess coronary disease severity in our study. We found that the recessive genetic model of rs3024270 could predict the severity of CAD. However, no significant relationship was observed between rs2735971, rs2839698, and severity of CAD.


### 4.1. Limitations

There were several limitations to our study. First, the sample size was not sufficiently large. The populations selected in our research were all Han people in Liaoning Province. Therefore, the results of our study need to be validated in larger samples, in other regions, and among other ethnic groups. Second, the SNP loci in our study were all located in the intron region, so the underlying mechanisms of the effect of SNP site on the function of H19 require further examination. Third, the largest CAD GWAS available (CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D) showed that it was the most significant. In addition, we failed to add these lncRNAs in this study. However, our study was an exploratory study and the results verified by GWAS indicate the direction to take in the future. Finally, we calculated the test effectiveness. Although some of the loci were not significant, there were some indications for exploring the SNPs of CAD and clues for future clinical applications.


## 4.1. Limitations

There were several limitations to our study. First, the sample size was not sufficiently large. The populations selected in our research were all Han people in Liaoning Province. Therefore, the results of our study need to be validated in larger samples, in other regions, and among other ethnic groups. Second, the SNP loci in our study were all located in the intron region, so the underlying mechanisms of the effect of SNP site on the function of H19 require further examination. Third, the largest CAD GWAS available (CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D) showed that it was the most significant. In addition, we failed to add these lncRNAs in this study. However, our study was an exploratory study and the results verified by GWAS indicate the direction to take in the future. Finally, we calculated the test effectiveness. Although some of the loci were not significant, there were some indications for exploring the SNPs of CAD and clues for future clinical applications.


## 5. Conclusion

In summary, our study demonstrated that some genotypes of polymorphisms rs2735971, rs2839698, and rs3024270 of H19 were associated with the risk and severity of CAD in a Chinese population and might help to predict the risk of CAD in the future. We also found that rs2735971-rs2839698-rs3024270 A-C-C may have a significantly lower risk of CAD. The recessive genetic model of rs3024270 could predict the severity of CAD.



---

*Source: 9839612-2020-05-11.xml*