Abstract
Lipoedema is a chronic adipose tissue disorder mainly affecting women, causing excess subcutaneous fat deposition on the lower limbs with pain and tenderness. There is often a family history of lipoedema, suggesting a genetic origin, but the contribution of genetics is currently unclear. A tightly phenotyped cohort of 200 lipoedema patients was recruited from two UK specialist clinics. Objective clinical characteristics and measures of quality of life data were obtained. In an attempt to understand the genetic architecture of the disease better, genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotype data were obtained, and a genome wide association study (GWAS) performed on 130 of the recruits. The analysis revealed genetic loci suggestively associated with the lipoedema phenotype, with further support provided by an independent cohort taken from the 100,000 Genomes Project. Top SNPs included loci associated with lipoma formation, biosynthesis of hormones and lipid hydroxylation. Exactly how these SNPs relate to a lipoedema disease mechanism is not yet understood but the findings are consistent with existing fat and hormone hypotheses. This first GWAS of a UK lipoedema cohort has identified genetic regions of suggestive association with the disease. Further replication of these findings in different populations is warranted.
Introduction
Lipoedema is a chronic condition characterized by abnormal subcutaneous accumulation of adipose tissue in the limbs. This condition predominantly affects women, and the clinical phenotype is of a disproportionate figure with symmetrically enlarged lower body, typically affecting the hips and buttocks, extending to the legs, with sparing of the feet leading to a bracelet or cuffing effect at the ankles. Some patients have a more proximal distribution of abnormal fat, with the thighs affected to a greater extent than the lower legs. The affected tissues feel soft and “doughy” to the touch and the skin remains soft unlike in lymphoedema. In some patients the abnormal fat is reported to feel grainy, nodular or like “beans in a bag” [1, 2]. The torso appears unaffected, and, in the absence of obesity, individuals present with a relatively small waist and chest. The upper limbs may also be involved, but with forearm sparing in many cases. The onset of lipoedema often occurs at times of female hormonal change such as puberty, during pregnancy or menopause [3, 4]. The condition is associated with easy bruising, tenderness when touched, and chronic pain in the affected limbs [5]. The pain is frequently misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia. Chronic fatigue, psychosocial and poor body image issues are recognized comorbidities with lipoedema.
The term lipoedema itself causes confusion amongst medical professionals. Whilst it is derived from Latin and Greek words for “fat” (lipid or lipos) and “to swell” (oedema or oidein), physicians tend to use the term “oedema” in clinical practice to refer to the presence of fluid swelling. Lipoedema remains largely underdiagnosed or even misdiagnosed by the medical profession [6, 7]. One explanation for diagnostic difficulties is that lipoedema is a little-known disease, which can also be confused diagnostically with other conditions that present with limb enlargement such as lymphoedema or gynoid obesity [3, 8].
In chronic lymphoedema there can be a significant fat composition which contributes to leg swelling [9] and secondary lymphoedema may complicate lipoedema, so called lipolymphoedema. Another distinguishing feature of lymphoedema is a high rate of cellulitis due to immune dysfunction from impaired lymphatic drainage [10]. This again contrasts with an absence of cellulitis reports in lipoedema patients (unless they have developed secondary lymphoedema).
Lipoedema is not always simple to differentiate from obesity. Gynoid fat distribution can look identical to lipoedema but is less painful and in theory responsive to calorie restriction. Obesity may be assessed by calculating body mass index (BMI), defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters (kg/m2). The WHO categorises a BMI over 25 kg/m2 as overweight, and a BMI over 30 kg/m2 as obese [11]. Patients with lipoedema usually have elevated BMIs because of big heavy legs but whilst obesity will respond to restricted dietary intake, the abnormal fat of lipoedema is far less responsive, leading to a wasted upper body but a lower body that stubbornly remains disproportionately enlarged from the waist to the ankles. The abnormal response to weight-reducing diets would argue against a form of obesity. However, later in life, lipoedema is often complicated by obesity, in which case, historical symptoms of disproportionately big legs but small upper trunk are key to the diagnosis. Interestingly, patients with lipoedema display a less severe cardiovascular profile and have a normal lipid profile than those of equivalent BMI without lipoedema [12–14]. The gynoid profile of lipoedema may even protect against diabetes [12, 15].
The diagnosis of lipoedema can be difficult to make if lymphoedema and/or obesity co-exist. One of the major problems with the diagnosis of lipoedema is the lack of a confirmatory test. The exploration of ultrasound in lipoedema proves promising [16, 17]; however, it is not yet an established gold standard.
Exactly what causes lipoedema is not known. Family history has been reported in lipoedema patients suggesting a familial origin of the disease [5, 18] but many cases also appear to be sporadic. Genes or loci associated with the condition are still in need of identification. As a single gene (monogenic) cause has not yet been identified, we therefore believe that the genetic architecture of the disease is more complex with a mix of genetic and environmental risk factors contributing. To investigate this hypothesis, we have conducted a Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) to investigate genetic associations with the lipoedema trait. Obtaining meaningful genetic results rely on studying as homogenous a group of phenotypes as possible. Therefore, the cohort of patients were selected on strict clinical criteria. As reduced quality of life has been reported in women with lipoedema [4, 19], the recruits were also subjected to self-administered health related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment as the items that are objectively measured in the HRQoL assessment can assist in the diagnostic criteria. Identifying the possible genetic causes could help to better define lipoedema, facilitate the development of a diagnostic test, and could lead to possible treatments.
Materials and Methods
Case ascertainment
Patient recruitment occurred through referrals to the two UK specialist clinics at St George’s University Hospital NHS Trust and the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Trust. Further recruitment was encouraged through advertisement to the members of ‘LipoedemaUK’ local patient support group meetings and conferences. The patients were seen by clinicians or a research nurse with a specialist interest in lymphoedema and lipoedema (authors GB, KG, KR, PSM, RE and VK). Ethical approval was obtained from the local Health Research Authority (REC reference number: 16/LO/0005). Individuals were invited to participate if they matched the major inclusion criteria and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Methodological details regarding inclusion criteria and the data obtained through interview and clinical assessment are reported in Table 1 and the Supplementary Methods.
Health related quality of life assessment
Patients were invited to complete the 36 items of the General Health Questionnaire Short Form (SF-36 Health Survey) by themselves at the time of their appointment. Participation in this study was voluntary and no incentives were offered. The SF-36 measures eight domains related to ‘Physical Functioning’, ‘Physical Role Limitations’, ‘Emotional Role Limitations’, ‘Vitality’ (or energy), ‘Emotional and Mental Wellbeing’, ‘Social Functioning’, ‘Bodily Pain’, and ‘General Health’. If more than 25% of the questionnaire was incomplete, it was excluded from analysis. The Likert like scores were transformed to range from zero to 100 and the methods for computing the scores followed reported guidelines [20]. Scores from the eight SF-36 domains were correlated with clinical records such as participant BMI, age of onset of lipoedema and waist-hip ratio (WHR). Correlations between the SF-36 domain scores, and between demographic variables were also computed.
Genotyping of the discovery cohort
Recruits who identified as being of white British ancestry were invited to participate in the genotyping arm of the study. 148 consented and peripheral blood was obtained, DNA extracted, and genotyped in two batches by Cambridge Genomic Services using Illumina Infinium_CoreExome-24_v1-2 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip and by UCL Genomics facilities using the Infinium_Core-24_v1-2-a1 SNP chip. To avoid batch effect generated by genotyping the lipoedema samples in two slightly different SNP arrays, 22 samples were genotyped in both batches and SNPs showing inconsistency (n=4) between the two arrays were removed. 5,849 female samples of white British ethnicity enrolled in the Understanding Society UK study [21] and genotyped using HumanCoreExome-12_v1.0 were used as controls (European Genome-phenome Archive ID: EGAD00010000890).
Replication cohort
For the replication study, whole genome sequencing data from the Genomics England (GEL) 100,000 Genomes Project Rare Diseases program (main-programme_v11) was used [22]. In the Cardiovascular Genomics England Clinical Interpretation Partnership (GeCIP), 93 participants were identified with the label “Lipoedema” in the lymphatic disorder subdomain. To ensure there was no overlap between the discovery cohort and the replication cohort, GEL participants already included in the discovery cohort or participants related to individuals in the discovery cohort were excluded. GEL participants not marked as “Europeans” by the 100,000 Genomes Project inferred ancestry were also excluded, and so were individuals who had HPO terms indicating comorbidities unrelated to lipoedema, leaving us with 27 cases for the replication cohort. Unaffected females without a diagnosed condition, marked as “Europeans” and unrelated to each other and/or to the lipoedema cases were selected as the control group of the replication cohort (N=11,409).
Association Analyses and Meta-analysis
Discovery cohort and control genotyping data underwent thorough quality control before association analysis using PLINK (v1.90b6.21 & v2.00a3LM) [23]. Samples with either low calling rate (< 97%) or ±3 SD deviation from the heterozygosity rate mean of the samples (NCases=4, NControls=85) were excluded from the analysis. Relatedness between all sample pairs in the cohort was inferred by calculating identity by descent. In sample-pairs with PI_HAT>0.05, the sample with the highest BMI and WHR (for cases) and/or lower genotyping calling rate was excluded (NCases=9, NControls=304). The cohort was merged with the CEU, CHB and YRI reference populations from HapMap study [24] and genetically divergent ethnic outliers were excluded (NCases=5, NControls=59) after performing principal component analysis using GCTA package (v1.93.2beta) [25] leaving 130 cases and 5,401 controls in the discovery cohort. SNPs with minor allele frequency (MAF) <0.01, missing call rate >0.05, and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium ≤ 1 x 10−6 were excluded from the analysis.
SNP-based heritability association analysis was then calculated in the discovery cohort by using the restricted maximum likelihood (--reml) option in the GCTA package. Since the prevalence of lipoedema is still elusive the calculation was performed by using both a prevalence of 5% and 10%.
Association analysis was performed in the discovery cohort using PLINK 1.9 logistic regression. The distribution of the association P-Values was assessed using a Quantile-Quantile plot (Q-Q) plot. The 30 SNPs with the lowest P-values in 27 distinct loci were tested for association with lipoedema in the replication cohort using PLINK 1.9 logistic regression. Summary statistics from both studies were used to perform a meta-analysis for these 30 SNPs using METAL software [26]. The “SCHEME STDERR” approach was followed so the meta-analysis was performed on Odds Ratios (OR) and their standard errors. These SNPs were annotated using SNPnexus [27], while their impact on gene expression in different tissues was explored using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) information from the Genotype Tissue Expression (GTEx) Portal [28] using LDexpress Tool [29]. Gene Ontology (GO) [30] analyses were performed using DAVID Bioinformatics Resources [31]. Further SNP fine mapping was performed by using the ENCODE Candidate Cis-Regulatory Elements combined from all cell types [32] and Clustered interactions of GeneHancer regulatory elements and genes [33] databases using the UCSC Table Browser [34]. Scripts used for the analysis can be found on GitHub (https://github.com/digrigor/SGUL_UK_Lipoedema_GWAS).
Results
Patient selection criteria
Patient selection used clearly defined clinical criteria (Table 1, Supplementary Methods). These included painful excess adipose deposition from the hips to the ankles (Fig 1A-G), BMI ≤ 40 but no excess upper body fat, waist-hip ratio (WHR) ≤ 0.85, soft and “doughy” tissues, and sparing of the feet. Women with proximal upper limb lipoedema (Fig 1G) were also included in the study.
Additional patients were included who might not have had a clear-cut diagnosis. One patient was initially diagnosed with lower limb lymphoedema as a result of morbid obesity. Bariatric surgery was undertaken, and significant weight loss was achieved (∼50kg reduction). Her four-limb lipoedema had been masked by the obesity and only became apparent after the weight loss revealed disproportionate fat deposition of the limbs (Fig 1 H-J). Other patients presented with BMI > 40 at time of recruitment to the study (Fig 1K-M), but as they were longstanding patients of the clinic with documentation of BMI < 35 at time of presentation, they were included too. Although these recruits had increased waistline and android fat distribution, all still had a WHR ≤ 0.85 and the significantly elevated BMI reflects the progression of lipoedema over several years with increasing volumes of disproportionate (gynoid) adipose deposition of the lower limbs.
Patient summary characteristics
A total number of 200 women were recruited between September 2016 and March 2018 through face-to-face interview and clinical examination. The face-to-face interview included questions that are often self-reported by women with lipoedema such as the presence of pain or tenderness to the touch, noticeable easy bruising and disproportionate weight loss upon dieting. A summary of patient characteristics is documented in Table 2 and the full data are available in S1 Table.
At recruitment, the majority stated they were white British (92.5%), and the mean age was 47 years (SD±13.5; range 18y-81y) (Table 2). On average, the individuals reported to have been affected by lipoedema for 29.2 years (SD±12.9) with an age of onset at 16.8 years old (SD±9.0).
Clinical examination showed the mean weight among the lipoedema cases was 90.4kg (SD±20.0), mean height 1.65m (SD± .07) and the mean BMI was 33.4 (SD±7.2) (Table 2). The high BMI was not due to high levels of android fat as the average waist circumference was 91.3cm (SD±13.4), and hip circumference was 120.4cm (SD±14.3), thus the average calculated waist-hip ratio (WHR) was 0.76 (SD±0.07). This is less than the WHO recommended WHR of 0.85 for women, indicating that central obesity was not the cause of elevated BMI values [35]. Distribution of BMI, WHR and waist circumference among the cases are shown in S1 Fig.
Patients were examined for hypermobility or joint laxity of the elbows, knees, small joints of the hands and the back during the clinical assessment because there are anecdotal reports of increased hypermobility with lipoedema. 17.8% (33 recruits out of 185) were hypermobile (Table 2). Individuals were also examined for the presence of pitting oedema as part of the clinical assessment. In 53 (27%) recruits, mild pitting oedema was observed. The majority of oedema was observed in the older age groups (49/53 individuals with oedema were >35y). In most cases the oedema was either intermittent or confined to the ankles (61.7%). The underlying reason for the oedema was not investigated.
The face-to-face interview revealed that 58.2% (110/189) self-reported to have a family history of lipoedema (Table 2). Easy bruising, seen as one of the parameters to assess lipoedema, was self-reported in 90.3% individuals. 71% reported their limbs to be tender to the touch. On examination, 47.4% had clinically evident venous abnormalities, mostly mild superficial telangiectasia or uncomplicated varicose veins consistent with CEAP C1 and C2 disease (Table 2, Fig 1H-M).
When asked about the effect of dieting, 86.7% of recruits reported a disproportional weight loss where they found it easier/quicker to lose weight from the torso compared to the limbs (Table 2). Only 7.8% reported no loss of fat at all from the limbs with dieting/weight loss. 6.2% of recruits had undergone liposuction and one individual had undergone bariatric surgery. The bariatric surgery had led to 50kg weight loss, but unfortunately this accentuated her disproportionate body shape as more weight was lost from the torso compared to the limbs unmasking the lipoedema phenotype (Fig 1H-I).
Health related quality of life assessment
Physical, social and mental aspects of health were evaluated by using the validated and widely used self-reported Short Form-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-36). 135 women of the 200 recruited completed enough domains of the questionnaire to be included for analysis (S2 Table). The scores across the eight domains ranged from 40.2 – 64.7 (out of 100; with 100 indicating better health status) (Table 3). Multiple significant (P < 0.05) correlations were found between SF-36 scores and clinical variables (S3 Table). The strength of most of the relationships was weak-moderate as the absolute value of the correlation coefficient, r, was < 0.7. A few domains did show a strong relationship with the bodily pain domain, so that those experiencing lots of pain in the bodily pain domain also would report worse general health (r = 0.70) and physical functioning (r = 0.78) (S3 Table). The social functioning domain was also found to correlate strongly to the emotional and mental wellbeing domain (r = 0.72).
Genome-Wide Association Analysis
Of the 200 recruited lipoedema cases, 130 white British were included in a GWAS discovery cohort (indicated in S1 Table) with 5,531 ethnically matched female controls from the Understanding Society the UK Household Longitudinal Study cohort. The replication cohort consisted of 27 ethnically matched lipoedema cases (S4 Table) and 11,409 female controls enrolled in the 100,000 Genomes Project Rare Diseases Program v11. After quality control implementation, 233,441 SNPs were tested for association with the lipoedema trait in the discovery cohort using logistic regression analysis. The 30 SNPs showing the greatest association with lipoedema were selected for replication in the independent cohort, where genotyping was done by Whole Genome Sequencing, using logistic regression analysis. A meta-analysis was then performed to pool the per-SNP effect sizes from the discovery and replication studies.
To ensure there was no systematic bias in the discovery study arising from population stratification, a principal component analysis was performed with the HapMap population reference panel samples, revealing that after the quality-control steps there are no ethnic outliers left in the study, as both lipoedema cases and controls cluster together with the Central European HapMap population (Fig 2A). This is further highlighted by the absence of genomic inflation (λgc = 1.004) on the QQ plot of the observed P values (Fig 2B). To understand the proportion of genetic variance influencing the lipoedema phenotype in our cohort, SNP-based heritability (h2) in the discovery cohort was estimated and found to be 0.50 (SE = 0.52, P = 0.17) and 0.62 (SE = 0.65, P = 0.17) when the prevalence of lipoedema in the population was set to 5% and 10%, respectively. However, there is a lack of statistical significance in this estimation due to the limited sample size.
The association analysis in the discovery cohort revealed multiple suggestive genomic loci associated with lipoedema. Although there were no SNPs passing the genome-wide significance threshold (P < 5 x 10−8), 30 SNPs with P < 1 x 10−4 were identified (Fig 2C, S5 Table). Nine of these SNPs (in seven distinct loci) were supported in the replication cohort with Pmeta < 1 x 10−4 and same direction of effect for both analyses (Table 4).
According to the meta-analysis, the top three lipoedema-associated SNPs (rs1409440, rs7994616, and rs11616618; ORmeta≈ 2.01, Pmeta ≈ 4 x 10−6, Fig 2D) are in a block of linkage disequilibrium (LD) on chromosome 13. The block, which is ∼40kb with r2 > 0.8, is near the FREM2, STOML3, PROSER1, NHLRC3, and LHFPL6 genes (Fig 2E). When mapping these non-coding SNPs to regulatory elements in the genome all three are located in an LHFLP6 interaction region according to the GeneHancer database, while based on the ENCODE project classifications, rs1409440 is specifically located in a distal enhancer-like signature locus upstream of LHFPL6 (S6 Table). Localization of this LD block in regulatory elements of LHFPL6 suggests it is a regulator of the gene’s expression. This is highlighted by the direct significant association (P < 5 × 10−6) between several LD buddies (r2 > 0.6) of the three SNPs with LHFPL6 expression in many tissues, for example, in skin (‘sun exposed lower leg’), as shown by the expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) analysis (S7 Table).
To explore whether the presence of these three variants upstream of LHFPL6 affects the clinical characteristics of the carriers, the phenotypic characteristics of the group of patients carrying all three SNPs (N = 45: NDiscovery = 38, NReplication = 7) were compared against those of non-carriers in both discovery and replication cohorts. The results showed that lipoedema patients carrying the variants upstream of LHFPL6 were significantly more likely to report a direct maternal relative (mother, daughter, sister) with lipoedema symptoms (chi-squared test: χ2 (1, N = 157) = 10.03, P = 0.002), highlighting the putative contribution of this locus, upstream to LHFPL6, to the genetic aspect of the disease.
Next, we explored the eQTL signals of the other SNPs (Table 4), to investigate links with the lipoedema phenotype. The SNP rs11511253 (Pmeta = 4.07 x 10−5, ORmeta = 1.67) is associated either directly or through its LD buddies with the expression of the genes (ZNF25 and ZNF33A), pseudogenes (CICP9, HSD17B7P2, SEPT7P9) and long non-coding RNAs (RP11-258F22.1/lnc-ZNF248-1; RP11-291L22.9/lnc-ZNF37A-4; RP11-508N22.12/lnc-ZNF33A-8) in, among others, lipoedema-related tissues like subcutaneous adipose tissue, and oestrogen-producing tissues such as adrenal gland, hypothalamus, breast, ovary and pituitary (S7 Table). rs9308098 (Pmeta = 2.50 x 10−5, ORmeta=1.79) is associated with CPE and KLHL2 gene expression in adrenal gland tissue (S7 Table).
Further investigation of links between the top SNPs and the lipoedema phenotype was undertaken. A gene ontology enrichment analysis was performed using DAVID on the genes associated with the SNPs either directly (SNPs located in the gene, n=4 from Table 4) or through eQTLs (n=29 from S7 Table) (as listed in S8 Table). The analysis showed that CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, which are both associated with replicated SNP rs10499948 (Pmeta = 5.91 x 10−5, ORmeta = 2.53; Table 4), participate in specific biological processes including lipid hydroxylation and aromatase activity which are probably relevant to lipoedema (S9 Table).
Discussion
Lipoedema is a clinical diagnosis in urgent need of an understanding of mechanism and treatment. No good biomarkers exist, and the disease manifestations show phenotypic overlap with other disorders, hampering the clinical diagnosis. Here we report the first comprehensive collection of lipoedema cases recruited from a white British population, with the aim of conducting a GWAS to explore a possible polygenic architecture. Through careful phenotyping we have been highly selective in recruitment of cases, taking care to exclude those with generalized obesity where lipoedema is difficult to diagnose.
Approximately half the recruited women reported a family history of large legs, and this is consistent with the estimated SNP-based heritability of 50-60% calculated in the discovery cohort, indicating a strong genetic link to lipoedema. However, larger lipoedema cohorts are needed to validate this estimation. Strong association of autosomal dominant inheritance with sex limitation has been observed within affected family members with lipoedema [3]. Despite a small cohort size, we believe the careful phenotyping has led to the identification of some putative regions of genetic association. The top three SNPs in our analysis, rs1409440, rs7994616 and rs11616618, were located on chromosome 13 in a block of linkage disequilibrium (LD) close to the LHFPL6 gene, while fine-mapping analysis results showed that all three SNPs are associated with LHFPL6 gene expression. The eQTLs supporting this association were identified in lower leg skin tissue, amongst others. The LHFP (LHFPL6) gene is a member of the lipoma HMGIC (High-mobility group protein isoform C) fusion partner gene family and it is localized to chromosome 13q. It has been associated with higher levels of polyunsaturated fats in adipose tissues in thigh tissue in chicken [36] and it has been linked to a translocation-associated lipoma [37], making it an interesting gene to explore. Petit et al. described an acquired cytogenetic translocation in a lipoma with breakpoints at 12q13-15 and 13q12 resulting in a fusion transcript between the genes HMGIC and LHFP [37]. Further cytogenetic analysis of various types of benign and malignant lipomas detected structural (balanced and unbalanced) rearrangements of or monosomy (clonal loss) for chromosome 13q and the authors speculated if haplo-insufficiency was the pathogenetic mechanism [38].
Lipomas are common soft tissue tumours identified as a ‘benign neoplasm of mature adipocytes’ [39]. They are characterized by non-symmetrical fat accumulations which are soft, fatty lumps present in the subcutaneous layer. They have been reported in association with lipoedema [1, 40], and in our clinics some lipoedema patients have reported the presence of lipomas (see Fig 1D), but as they are not considered diagnostic of lipoedema our data collection did not consistently record this. In contrast, lipomas are well described in Dercum’s disease or “painful fat syndrome” [41] which lies within the spectrum of lipoedema. The localized deposits of fatty tissue around the knees seen in many individuals with lipoedema might represent lipoma-like adipose tissue [42, 43] and it has been suggested that lipoedema and lipomas may be associated as both can present with excessive adipose tissue [40]. The GWAS participants from our cohort carrying the SNPs associated with LHFPL6 were significantly more likely to report direct maternal family history compared to the non-carriers. However, how LHFPL6 is linked to excessive adipose tissue in lipoedema is not known. Although further investigation is needed to prove causality in this correlation, this finding is consistent with a genetic association between this locus and the onset of familial lipoedema.
Another finding from our enrichment analysis worth mentioning is of the GWAS results using eQTL data which revealed an association to the CPE gene. This gene encodes the Carboxypeptidase E protein which is involved in the biosynthesis of many neuropeptides and peptide hormones, e.g. estrogen. A CPE point mutation has been shown to cause loss of CPE activity leading to late onset obesity in homozygous mice [44]. The obesity was not characteristic of other obese mutant mice models and is not thought to be caused by increased food intake, but as a result of defective nutrient processing. Of other interesting associations, the SNP, rs11511253, which associated with the expression of the ZNF25 and ZNF33A genes and some long non-coding RNAs and pseudogenes in adipose tissue and various oestrogen expressing tissues would be interesting to explore further. Likewise, the two genes CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 and their involvement in lipid hydroxylation and aromatase (also known as oestrogen synthetase) activity, as identified through the pathway analysis, could elucidate some of the underlying disease mechanisms, for example, if and how oestrogen is related to the lipoedema phenotype.
Despite the strict selection criteria limiting numbers of recruits, the “UK Lipoedema” cohort is typical of other lipoedema cases described in the literature. The recruited lipoedema patients are strikingly similar to that of Dudek and colleagues, who reported similar low WHR ratios (average value = 0.78), self-reported high levels of easy bruising (91%), tenderness/pain (83%) and disproportional weight loss (87%) [14]. The age of onset was mainly reported as pubertal. The majority of women (86.7%) in our cohort reported disproportional weight loss upon dieting. However, it is important to also acknowledge these women reported that fat loss was achievable from affected limbs. Why so many women with lipoedema suffer with obesity is not yet understood – is it “cause and effect”, or are there more complicated genetic reasons behind it? Clearly there is an urgent need for research into the possible association between lipoedema and obesity, but until then it is important to ensure that women with lipoedema access successful weight management strategies to ensure weight gain and progression of lipoedema are avoided.
Chronic fatigue, psychosocial and poor body image issues are recognized comorbidities with lipoedema. Many lipoedema patients will have been dismissed by their doctors at some point and told to manage their weight by dieting or lifestyle changes. Diets and physical exercise are reported to lead to disproportionate loss of weight from the upper half of the body in patients with lipoedema, accentuating the disproportional figure. The disproportionate body shape in females can cause negative body image and “body shaming” criticism from friends, family, and health care professionals. As an impact of overall psychological well-being this could lead to patient experiences of distress, anxiety, depression, eating disorders and isolation [2, 4]. The SF-36 questionnaire confirmed that quality of life was reduced in all eight domains evaluated. This is comparable to other studies of lipoedema patients using either the SF-36 or similar investigative tools [4, 19, 45]. The mean scores across eight domains show more consistency with chronic neuropathic pain patients than obesity patients (S2 Fig.) [46, 47] suggesting similarities with individuals that have a chronic condition.
The main limitation of this study was the small numbers. We tried in particular to use BMI < 30 and WHR < 0.80 as inclusion criteria, but this resulted in too small a sample size. Thus, criteria had to be loosened to include cases with BMI ≤ 40 and WHR ≤ 0.85. This can only be recommended if there is sufficient medical history for the clinician to confirm the diagnosis. Despite being less conservative in inclusion, we still had a relatively small sample size, which limited our statistical power in the GWAS, but we believe the homogeneity of the cohort helped to enrich the dataset. Another limitation related to the samples obtained from the ‘Understanding Society UK study’ (controls) and GEL (cases and controls), which both lack information on waist-hip ratio and BMI. Such data would have been extremely valuable for excluding any potential lipoedema cases from the controls and to have understood if the cases from the GEL replication cohort would have fulfilled the lipoedema inclusion criteria.
In conclusion, we have described a tightly phenotyped lipoedema cohort from a UK population. Based on genetic analysis, we identified suggestive SNPs linked with the disease, notably at chr13q13.3 near the LHFPL6 gene. The meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts also revealed six other distinct genetic loci putatively associated with the disease. These results show some interesting connections relevant to the disease phenotype. However, replication of the GWAS in different populations is needed. From our findings, we cannot tell the true driver of disease and follow-up studies investigating the associated loci/genes are needed. In time this could enable a better understanding of the underlying genetic causes of lipoedema and its disease mechanism and perhaps even fat deposition and homeostasis in general.
Data Availability
Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication in a journal the full raw SNP array data will be uploaded to EGA where it will be available for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. A summary of the GWAS data will also be made available through a FIGSHARE repository for anyone to access.
Supplementary Methods
Case ascertainment
The diagnosis of lipoedema and recruitment to the study used the following inclusion and exclusion criteria based on consensus opinions of clinical experts.
List of inclusion criteria (as summarized in Table 1)
Female.
Age of onset (ideally below 35 years).
BMI ≤40 kg/m2.
Waist-hip ratio (WHR) ≤0.85*.
No or minimal central (android) obesity.
Bilateral and symmetrical fat hypertrophy on lower limbs (e.g. “saddlebags” fat distribution on hips or steatopygia, medial knee “fat pads”), usually soft and “doughy”/“floppy” to the touch.
Spared feet.
Persistent enlargement (with no significant effect from overnight elevation)
White British ethnicity (only applicable for the GWAS).
*The WHO advises that a healthy WHR is ≤0.85 for women [1], WHR >0.85 indicates abdominal obesity.
Individuals were excluded from the study if any of the following criteria were identified.
List of exclusion criteria
Lymphoedema skin changes (hyperkeratosis or papillomatosis).
Firm, fibrotic swelling suggesting chronic lymphoedema.
History of episodes of acute cellulitis.
No significant comorbidities (e.g. diabetes or renal disease).
Morbid obesity
Each patient was carefully assessed through clinical examination and face-to-face interview and a general detailed medical history was taken and data collected on:
weight, height, BMI
waist and hip circumference, WHR
family history of lipoedema
arm swelling
hypermobility
age of onset of lipoedema
age of puberty
limb volume response to dieting
easy bruising of affected areas
tenderness or pain
history or presence of venous disease (self-reported and inspected)
history or presence of orthostatic oedema (self-reported and inspected)
Clinical summaries, including medical photographs obtained with patient consent, were reviewed by at least two specialists, and all available medical case files studied. Patients whose BMI was above 40 kg/m2 or WHR above 0.85 at the time of the recruitment consultation were included in the study, but only if they had been known to the senior clinician for several years and historically would have fallen within the inclusion criteria. If the patient was new to our service and did not fulfil the major inclusion criteria, they were not included in the analyses.
The waist was measured in centimetres at the narrowest part of the abdomen usually close to the umbilicus. The hips were measured (in cm) by locating the greater trochanter of the femur and measuring at that level, usually the widest portion of the buttocks. Waist-hip ratio (WHR) was then calculated as the waist circumference divided by hip circumference.
Some of the data collected need to be interpreted with caution as they included subjective measures based on self-reporting, such as easy bruising, tenderness/pain and response to diet. For example, the responsiveness to diet was assessed through the question “If responsive to dieting and there is weight loss; is it disproportionate with less weight lost from legs (and arms) than the rest of the body?”. However, the perception of what dieting and weight-loss entails can be subjective, and we had no means of following up on this.
Age of onset of lipoedema is self-reported in most cases. Disease duration was calculated by subtracting the age of onset from age at recruitment date.
Hypermobility or joint laxity was checked at elbows, knees, small joints of the hands and back (Beighton score). If hypermobile in four or more joints, the recruit was scored as hypermobile.
Venous problems were assessed through clinical assessment and categorized into ‘mild superficial’ (equivalent to CEAP C1) and ‘uncomplicated varicose veins’ (equivalent to CEAP C2). A few cases self-reported having undergone surgery for varicose veins (classed as CEAP C3). However, chronic venous disease was not formerly assessed with e.g. duplex scan. Regarding the assessment of orthostatic oedema, we did not differentiate between lymphoedema or chronic oedema due to e.g. venous hypertension.
It was also recorded if the patient had undergone liposuction or bariatric surgery. Only cases known to us with clinically confirmed lipoedema prior to these interventions were included in the study.
Supplementary Tables
See supplementary Excel file for spreadsheets for each supplementary table.
S1 Table. Raw data collected for all 200 recruits in the ‘UK Lipoedema’ cohort. Summarized in Table 2.
S2 Table. Raw SF-36 data for the 135 individuals who answered enough of the 36 questions to be included in the quality of life analysis. Results are summarized in Table 3.
S3 Table. Correlations between SF-36 Quality of life Questionnaire domains. The correlation coefficients, r, are displayed and those with strong correlations (r > 0.7) are highlighted in bold type. All correlations were significant at the p < 0.05 level.
S4 Table. GEL Participants with Lipoedema as “Recruited Disease” in the Rare Diseases program of the 100,000 Genomes Project. Age at recruitment is calculated as (year of recruitment to GEL) – (Year of Birth). Family history is based on any reports of “Affected” family members in GEL; “.”, uncertain.
S5 Table. List of the top 30 variants in the discovery study, and their GWAS results in the replication study and meta-analysis. The variants have been annotated to their nearest genes. Effect sizes and P values are shown for both studies and meta-analysis. Direction column shows whether the discovery and replication study follow the same direction of effect.
S6 Table. List of Genome regulatory elements associated with the three top meta-analysis SNPs (rs1409440, rs7994616, rs11616618) on chromosome 13 potentially associated with lipoedema. Data was downloaded from UCSC Table Browser using the geneHancerClusteredInteractionsDoubleElite (last updated: 2019-01-15) and encodeCcreCombined (last updated: 2020-05-20) tables.
S7 Table. List of all significant gene expression quantitative trait loci found for the SNPs in Table 4 and/or their LD buddies (P < 5 × 10−6, r2 > 0.6). Analysis was performed on LDexpress module from the LDlink online tool of NCBI and this list was downloaded.
S8 Table. List of genes selected for Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis. The genes were either selected because they were directly associated with the SNPs potentially associated with lipoedema (intragenic SNPs from Table 4) or because they are associated with the SNPs in Table 4 through eQTL (r2 > 0.6, P < 5 × 10−6) as summarised in S7 Table.
S9 Table. Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis on the genes directly and/or indirectly associated with the SNPs potentially associated with lipoedema (list from S8 Table). The analysis was performed on Biological Process (BP), Molecular Function (MF), and Cellular Component (CC) GO terms.
Supplementary Figures
Acknowledgement
The authors thank all participants for volunteering their time for this study. We would also like to thank ‘LipoedemaUK’ for facilitating recruitment through their members. This research was made possible through access to the data and findings generated by the 100,000 Genomes Project and Understanding Society. The 100,000 Genomes Project is managed by Genomics England Limited (a wholly owned company of the Department of Health and Social Care). The 100,000 Genomes Project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research and NHS England. The Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council have also funded research infrastructure. The 100,000 Genomes Project uses data provided by patients and collected by the National Health Service as part of their care and support. Understanding Society is an initiative funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and various Government Departments, with scientific leadership by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, and survey delivery by NatCen Social Research and Kantar Public. The research data are distributed by the UK Data Service. We also extend our thanks to members of the St George’s University of London (SGUL) Lymphovascular Research Team for invaluable discussions and feedback on our work and to the following members of the Lipoedema consortium: Dr Yann Klimentidis, University of Arizona; Prof Natasha Harvey and Dr Hamish Scott, University of South Australia.