The Association between Blood Lipids and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Research
by
,
Yang Ding
1,
Shasha Fan
1,
Yi Tang
1,
Mengjiao He
2,
Mingyang Ren
1,3,
Yunjuan Shi
3,
Xiaohua Tao
1,* and
Wei Lu
1,* 1
Health Management Center, Department of Dermatology, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Affiliated People’s Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, No. 158, Shangtang Road, Hangzhou 310014, China
2
Departments of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310009, China
3
Graduate School of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu 233030, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metabolites 2023, 13(1), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo13010027
Submission received: 21 October 2022
/
Revised: 13 December 2022
/
Accepted: 21 December 2022
/
Published: 23 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skin Metabolism and Cutaneous Disorders)
Abstract
:We evaluated the causal effects of blood lipid levels on systemic lupus erythematosus with a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis. Independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms related to blood lipids levels (p < 5 × 10−8) were selected as instrumental variables (IVs) from a published genome-wide association study (GWAS). SLE GWAS analysis that included 4036 cases and 6959 controls of European ancestry provided the related roles between instrumental variables and result (SLE). The causal effects were evaluated with two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. According to the inverse-variance weighted approaches, genes predictive of increased LDL cholesterol (OR: 1.131; 95% CI: 0.838, 1.528; p = 0.420), HDL cholesterol (OR: 1.093; 95% CI: 0.884, 1.352; p = 0.412), triglycerides (OR: 0.903; 95% CI: 0.716, 1.137; p = 0.384), Apolipoprotein A-I (OR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.680, 1.074; p = 0.177), and Apolipoprotein B (OR: 0.933; 95% CI: 0.719, 1.211; p = 0.605) were not causally related to the risk of SLE, consistent with multivariate Mendelian randomization analysis. The reverse-MR analyses showed no massive causal roles between SLE and LDL cholesterol (OR: 0.998; 95% CI: 0.994, 1.001; p = 0.166) as well as Apolipoprotein B (OR: 0.998; 95% CI: 0.994, 1.001; p = 0.229). Nevertheless, a causal role of SLE in decreasing HDL cholesterol (OR: 0.993; 95% CI: 0.988, 0.997; p = 0.002), triglycerides (OR: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.993, 0.999; p = 0.010), and Apolipoprotein A-I (OR: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.990, 0.999; p = 0.026) was validated to some extent. Our study found no causal association between abnormal blood lipids and SLE nor a causal effect between SLE and LDL cholesterol as well as Apolipoprotein B. Nevertheless, some evidence showed that SLE exerted a causal effect on lowering HDL cholesterol, Apolipoprotein A-I, and triglyceride levels.
1. Introduction
As a prototypical autoimmune disease, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has characteristics such as chronic inflammation and immune complex deposition in affected organs [1,2]. It has been estimated that the prevalence of SLE is 30 to 50 patients per 100,000, equating to about 500,000 patients in Europe, and 90% of SLE patients are women of childbearing age [3]. Emerging evidence suggests that the effects of genetic factors, local environments, and sex hormone metabolism contribute to SLE’s pathogenesis and progression [3,4].
The “lupus pattern” of lipoproteins in SLE has characteristics such as improved triglyceride and very-low-density lipoprotein concentrations combined with declined high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, usually happening in the active stages of the disease [5]. According to a remarkable outcome, these changes are aggravated by disease activity. Growing TG levels and declining HDL cholesterol levels have been shown to be directly related to SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI) marks, indicating a lipid profile abnormality in SLE patients [6]. And the potential mechanism of SLE on HDL and Apolipoprotein A-I could be that responses such as oxidative stress and chronic inflammation among SLE patients cause changes in HDL particle size, proteomics, and lipidomics, reducing the effects mentioned above. Although blood lipids exert a great effect on SLE, the causal association between blood lipid levels and the risk of SLE is still elusive.
As a new approach for instrumental variable (IV) analysis, Mendelian randomization (MR) identifies the causative relationship between exposure and disease [7] with genetic variants including single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Since genetic variation is not affected by result or confounding status, MR methods can settle the hidden confounding effects and reverse the causality of exposure and result [8]. Furthermore, there is minimal risk of reverse causality because the disease does not influence the individual’s genotype [9]. The two-sample MR research design uses genetic data on exposure and result from large sample sizes of different populations, which improves the test’s effectiveness and provides a powerful method for estimating the hidden causal effect of the exposure on the result [10,11].
To this date, no study has attempted to elucidate whether there is a causal relationship between blood lipids and SLE risk using MR methods. Therefore, the causal relationship behind this association remains largely unclear. To that end, the published data from a lot of genetic research studies are collected to explore if blood lipids had a causal correlation with the risk for SLE with the two-sample methods for MR analysis.
2. Methods
2.1. Data Resources and Study Design
In the present study, summary statistics for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein A-I and Apolipoprotein B were acquired from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) from the UK Biobank (UKB) in 393,193 UKB participants of European ancestry [12]. UKB is a very large, population-based prospective cohort recruiting above 500,000 men and women between 40 and 96 years old between 2006 and 2010, and their different health-related outcomes have been followed long-term [13]. Data for SLE was obtained from a previous meta-analysis of GWAS with over 10,000 subjects of European ancestry, such as 4036 SLE cases and 6959 controls (1260 controls of mainly southern European ancestry and 5699 from the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study), covering 644,674 markers in total [14]. All cases satisfied the standard American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification for SLE diagnosis. Collectively, this study identified 43 susceptibility loci associated with SLE [14].
Three core assumptions for MR analysis are shown below:
- (a)
- (b)
- The selected genetic variant should be related to the outcome risk only through exposure, not via confounders. Herein, the horizontal pleiotropy pathway between the genetic variant and outcome was identified with MR-Egger regression [17].
- (c)
- The genetic variant should be independent of confounders.
2.2. Selection of Instrumental Genetic Variables
Our major exposure was genetically decided plasma lipids as an instrumental variable based on genetic variation related to the extents of HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and Apolipoprotein A-I and Apolipoprotein B at genome-wide significance levels (p < 5 × 10−8). For no bias of powerful linkage disequilibrium (LD), the SNPs related to blood lipids had to satisfy r2 < 0.001 thresholds and be located 10, 000 kb apart from each other [18]. For evaluating whether the SNPs were related to confounding or risk elements, potentially related traits at genome-wide significance threshold were searched for with the PhenoScanner (http://www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk/, accessed on 8 September 2021) [19]. Finally, we selected 112 SNPs as instrument variables for LDL cholesterol, 262 SNPs for HDL cholesterol, 213 SNPs for triglycerides, 198 SNPs for Apolipoprotein A-I, 133 SNPs for Apolipoprotein B, and 45 SNPs for SLE.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
The potential causal associations between blood lipids and SLE in two populations, respectively (Figure 1), were evaluated with two-sample MR analysis. The correlation between blood lipids and the risk of SLE was evaluated by making the primary analyses with the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) approach. IVW approach was adopted as the primary MR analysis, requiring all selected SNPs to be effective IVs [20]. Complementary analyses, including the weighted median method [21], maximum likelihood [22], robust adjusted profile score (RAPS) [22], and MR-Egger method [21], were performed to complement IVW. In consideration of the genetic and phenotypic correlation of lipid attributes, as previously disclosed, the roles of various lipid traits in SLE were assessed with multivariable IVW and a linear regression method. Heterogeneity among the estimates from each SNP was assessed with Cochran’s Q test. A fixed-effects model was adopted when there was no statistically significant heterogeneity; otherwise, more conservative estimates were provided with the random-effects model [23].
We first assessed potential pleiotropic effects with MR-Egger regression in the sensitivity analysis. The MR-Egger regression dealt with regression dilution bias, and the mean level pleiotropic role of all genetic variants could be explained by the intercept term [17]. Moreover, we identified outlier variants for removal to rectify hidden directional horizontal pleiotropy and solve detected heterogeneity with the MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) global test [24]. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was also made to further assess the independent validity of each IV.
Statistical significance was set as a two-tailed p-value < 0.05 unless otherwise noted. Furthermore, the package “Two-Sample-MR” (version 0.5.6) Auckland, New Zealand and “MR-PRESSO” (version 1.0) in R (version 4.0.5) (Auckland, New Zealand)were adopted to make all analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Genetic Instrumental Variants Selection
Using the above methods, the potential SNPs were screened for this study. Due to the confounding factors, 29 SNPs as instrument variables for LDL cholesterol, 30 SNPs for HDL cholesterol, 33 SNPs for triglycerides, 24 SNPs for Apolipoprotein A-I, and 26 SNPs for Apolipoprotein B were removed from the present study. Finally, 112, 262, 213, 198, and 133 SNPs were identified as IVs to analyze the causal effect of LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, Apolipoprotein A-I, and Apolipoprotein B on SLE, respectively. The detailed information on the IVs, including effect allele, effect allele frequency, role sizes in blood lipids, and SLE, are displayed in Supplementary Tables S1–S5.
3.2. Two-Sample and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization of Blood Lipids and the Risk of SLE
IVW estimates uncovered that genetically forecasted LDL cholesterol (Odds ratio OR: 1.131; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.838, 1.528; p = 0.420), HDL cholesterol (OR: 1.093; 95% CI: 0.884, 1.352; p = 0.412), triglycerides (OR: 0.903; 95% CI: 0.716, 1.137; p = 0.384), Apolipoprotein A-I (OR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.680, 1.074; p = 0.177), and Apolipoprotein B (OR: 0.933; 95% CI: 0.719, 1.211; p = 0.605) were not causally related to risk of SLE (Table 1), consistent with the results of complementary analyses (Table 1). The outcomes of MR-PRESSO are presented in Supplementary Table S11.
In the multivariable Mendelian randomization with mutual adjustment of blood lipid values, blood lipid expression was not correlated with SLE risk. The outcome conformed to complementary analyses with a linear regression-based method (Supplementary Table S13).
3.3. Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization of SLE and the Risk of Blood Lipids
For examining the causal correlation between SLE and blood lipids, an MR analysis was made with SLE as the exposure and blood lipids as the outcome. There were 45 obvious SNPs (p < 5 × 10−8) related to the risk of SLE derived from the GWAS research on Bentham et al. [14]. Due to the confounding factors, four SNPs (rs6679677, rs389884, rs2736332, and rs597808) were eliminated from the current research. Thus, 41 SNPs were included in the MR analysis finally. The IVW estimate revealed no obviously causal correlation between the risk of SLE and LDL cholesterol (OR: 0.998; 95% CI: 0.994, 1.001; p = 0.166) and Apolipoprotein B (OR: 0.998; 95% CI: 0.994, 1.001; p = 0.229). However, there was a weak causal correlation between the risk of SLE and HDL cholesterol (OR: 0.993; 95% CI: 0.988, 0.997; p = 0.002), triglycerides (OR: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.993, 0.999; p = 0.010), and Apolipoprotein A-I (OR: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.990, 0.999; p = 0.026) (Table 2). Consistent results were also obtained in complementary analyses (Table 2). The results of MR-PRESSO are presented in Supplementary Table S12. The details of the analyses are shown in Supplementary Tables S6–S10.
4. Discussion
The present research found no evidence of a link between genetically forecasted blood lipid levels and the risk of SLE. Moreover, our reverse-MR analyses revealed that SLE had no significant causal effects on LDL cholesterol or Apolipoprotein B. Nevertheless, some evidence proved that SLE exerted a causal effect on lowering HDL cholesterol, Apolipoprotein A-I, and triglycerides.
Evidence supporting weak causal roles between blood lipid levels and SLE was obtained. A recent study found that HDL cholesterol levels were lower in aging gld mice, which was associated with the development of SLE [25]. In addition, treating these mice with lipid-free Apolipoprotein A-I reversed the autoimmune phenotype and reduced the quantity of lymphatic nodules. Therapeutic strategies using Apolipoprotein A-I and Apolipoprotein A-I-mimetic peptides have also been initiated in animal models of SLE [26,27]. Furthermore, the high potential of the ubiquitin–proteasome system in regulating many human diseases is beginning to receive broad recognition. Proteins of the ubiquitin–proteasome system and E3 ubiquitin ligases are emerging as promising molecular targets for drug discovery in various diseases [28]. In humans, decreased LDL cholesterol, Apolipoprotein A-I, Apolipoprotein B, and elevated triglycerides are often found in SLE patients, while HDL cholesterol levels are comparable to those in healthy individuals [29]. Furthermore, another study found that, in patients with SLE, HDL cholesterol and Apolipoprotein A-I levels were significantly lower, triglyceride levels were significantly higher, while increases in LDL cholesterol and Apolipoprotein B levels were not statistically significant [30]. However, inconsistent with these observational studies, no massive evidence of a causal role between blood lipid levels and increased SLE risk was observed. These conflicting outcomes could be possibly boosted by reverse causation, confounding, or selection biases inborn in conventional observational research studies. Collectively, the findings of this study indicate a complicated causal effect on blood lipids in SLE requiring further examination.
Our reverse-MR analyses showed no massive causal roles of SLE in LDL cholesterol and Apolipoprotein B. Nevertheless, several evidences provided a causal effect of SLE susceptibility on decreasing HDL cholesterol levels and Apolipoprotein A-I. In line with observational studies, massive evidence of a causal role of higher risk of SLE in individuals with lower HDL cholesterol and Apolipoprotein A-I levels was observed. The mechanism could be that responses such as oxidative stress and chronic inflammation among SLE patients cause changes in HDL particle size, proteomics, and lipidomics, reducing the effects mentioned above. In inflammatory conditions, the antioxidant effect of HDL may be altered by changed gene expression of HDL-related proteins, including amyloid A, or by changed HDL function and composition, leading to decreased Apolipoprotein A-I levels [31,32]. Furthermore, because of integrated inflammation in lupus, the decreased antioxidant capacity of HDL may decrease its anti-atherogenic role [31]. Furthermore, we found causal effect of SLE susceptibility on decreasing triglycerides levels. However, the underlying mechanism has not been reported. The effect of the SLE on triglycerides levels needs more studies to examine.
Our MR approach has several advantages. To begin, its design minimized the potential for confounding or reverse causality in observational studies. Furthermore, we tested the effect of lipids in a large cohort of SLE patients using a two-sample MR approach (4036 SLE cases and 6959 controls).
Nevertheless, the present study has several limitations. First, there was heterogeneity in our results. It was impossible to investigate any potential non-linear relationship or stratification effect that varies with age, gender, or health status, which could be a source of heterogeneity based on the GWAS data. Second, due to the weakness of the MR analysis, the second and third assumptions could not be assessed accurately, potentially leading to bias. Third, the included study subjects were of European ancestry, limiting the applicability of the findings to other study populations of different ethnicities [33]. Furthermore, we did not investigate the correlation between blood lipids and different types of SLE.
5. Conclusions
It is concluded that the current research did not support the causal association between blood lipid levels and SLE risk, nor did it support the correlation between SLE risk and LDL cholesterol and Apolipoprotein B levels. Nevertheless, several evidences proved a causal effect of SLE on decreasing HDL cholesterol levels, Apolipoprotein A-I, and triglycerides. As a result, more research with updated data from huge genetic research studies is needed to confirm the findings of our MR research.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/metabo13010027/s1, Table S1. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of LDL-cholesterol for SLE. Table S2. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of HDL-cholesterol for SLE. Table S3. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of triglycerides for SLE. Tabke S4. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of Apolipoprotein A-I for SLE. Table S5. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of Apolipoprotein B for SLE. Table S6. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of SLE for LDL-cholesterol. Table S7. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of SLE for HDL-cholesterol. Table S8. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of SLE for triglycerides. Table S9. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of SLE for Apolipoprotein A-I. Table S10. Effect estimates of genetic instrumental variables of SLE for Apolipoprotein B. Table S11. MR-PRESSO for causal effect between blood lipids and SLE. Table S12. MR-PRESSO for causal effect between SLE and blood lipids. Table S13. Multivariable MR for causal effect between blood lipids and SLE.
Author Contributions
Methodology, Y.D., M.R. and Y.S.; Formal analysis, Y.D.; Investigation, Y.D., S.F., Y.T. and M.H.; Data curation, S.F.; Project administration, X.T. and W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Young Talents Project of Zhejiang Medicine and Health Science and Technology Project (Grant numbers 2019323407 and 2022518280).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.
References
- Fava, A.; Petri, M. Systemic lupus erythematosus: Diagnosis and clinical management. J. Autoimmun. 2019, 96, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pons-Estel, G.J.; Alarcón, G.S.; Scofield, L.; Reinlib, L.; Cooper, G.S. Understanding the Epidemiology and Progression of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2010, 39, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dörner, T.; Furie, R. Novel paradigms in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet 2019, 393, 2344–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiriakidou, M.; Ching, C. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 172, ITC81–ITC96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borba, E.F.; Carvalho, J.F.; Bonfá, E. Mechanisms of dyslipoproteinemias in systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin. Dev. Immunol. 2006, 13, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- de Carvalho, J.F.; Bonfá, E.; Borba, E.F. Systemic lupus erythematosus and “lupus dyslipoproteinemia”. Autoimmun. Rev. 2008, 7, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgess, S.; Small, D.; Thompson, S. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2017, 26, 2333–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davies, N.; Holmes, M.; Davey Smith, G. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: A guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ 2018, 362, k601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheehan, A.N.; Didelez, V.; Burton, P.R.; Tobin, M.D. Mendelian Randomisation and Causal Inference in Observational Epidemiology. PLoS Med. 2008, 5, e177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawlor, D. Commentary: Two-sample Mendelian randomization: Opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 45, 908–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, B.; Burgess, S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: Subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2013, 178, 1177–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Richardson, T.G.; Sanderson, E.; Palmer, T.M.; Ala-Korpela, M.; Ference, B.A.; Smith, G.D.; Holmes, M.V. Evaluating the relationship between circulating lipoprotein lipids and apolipoproteins with risk of coronary heart disease: A multivariable Mendelian randomisation analysis. PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Collins, R. What makes UK Biobank special? Lancet 2012, 379, 1173–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentham, J.; Morris, D.; Graham, D.S.C.; Pinder, C.; Tombleson, P.; Behrens, T.W.; Martin, J.; Fairfax, B.P.; Knight, J.; Chen, L.; et al. Genetic association analyses implicate aberrant regulation of innate and adaptive immunity genes in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 1457–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawlor, D.A.; Harbord, R.M.; Sterne, J.A.C.; Timpson, N.; Smith, G.D. Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat. Med. 2008, 27, 1133–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hemani, G.; Zheng, J.; Elsworth, B.; Wade, K.H.; Haberland, V.; Baird, D.; Laurin, C.; Burgess, S.; Bowden, J.; Langdon, R.; et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. eLife 2018, 7, e34408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowden, J.; Davey Smith, G.; Burgess, S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: Effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J. Epidemiol. 2015, 44, 512–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, S.; Lee, S.; Kim, Y.; Lee, Y.; Kang, M.W.; Kim, K.; Kim, Y.C.; Han, S.S.; Lee, H.; Lee, J.P.; et al. Atrial fibrillation and kidney function: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 2816–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staley, J.R.; Blackshaw, J.; Kamat, M.A.; Ellis, S.; Surendran, P.; Sun, B.B.; Paul, D.S.; Freitag, D.; Burgess, S.; Danesh, J.; et al. PhenoScanner: A database of human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinformatics 2016, 32, 3207–3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burgess, S.; Butterworth, A.; Thompson, S. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet. Epidemiol. 2013, 37, 658–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowden, J.; Smith, G.D.; Haycock, P.C.; Burgess, S. Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet. Epidemiol. 2016, 40, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hartwig, F.P.; Davey Smith, G.; Bowden, J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 46, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bowden, J.; Del Greco, M.F.; Minelli, C.; Davey Smith, G.; Sheehan, N.; Thompson, J. A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat. Med. 2017, 36, 1783–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Verbanck, M.; Chen, C.-Y.; Neale, B.; Do, R. Publisher Correction: Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat. Genet. 2018, 50, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Srivastava, R.; Yu, S.; Parks, B.W.; Black, L.L.; Kabarowski, J.H. Autoimmune-mediated reduction of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and paraoxonase 1 activity in systemic lupus erythematosus-prone gld mice. Arthritis Care Res. 2010, 63, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zabalawi, M.; Bhat, S.; Loughlin, T.; Thomas, M.J.; Alexander, E.; Cline, M.; Bullock, B.; Willingham, M.; Sorci-Thomas, M.G. Induction of fatal inflammation in LDL receptor and ApoA-I double-knockout mice fed dietary fat and cholesterol. Am. J. Pathol. 2003, 163, 1201–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilhelm, A.J.; Zabalawi, M.; Grayson, J.M.; Weant, A.E.; Major, A.S.; Owen, J.; Bharadwaj, M.; Walzem, R.; Chan, L.; Oka, K.; et al. Apolipoprotein A-I and Its Role in Lymphocyte Cholesterol Homeostasis and Autoimmunity. Arter. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2009, 29, 843–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bulatov, E.; Khaiboullina, S.; dos Reis, H.J.; Palotás, A.; Venkataraman, K.; Vijayalakshmi, M.; Rizvanov, A. Ubiquitin-Proteasome System: Promising Therapeutic Targets in Autoimmune and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Bionanoscience 2016, 6, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Pérez, H.; Quevedo-Abeledo, J.C.; De Armas-Rillo, L.; Rua-Figueroa, Í.; Tejera-Segura, B.; Armas-González, E.; Machado, J.D.; García-Dopico, A.J.; Jimenez-Sosa, A.; Rodríguez-Lozano, C.; et al. Impaired HDL cholesterol efflux capacity in systemic lupus erythematosus patients is related to subclinical carotid atherosclerosis. Rheumatology 2020, 59, 2847–2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarı, R.A.; Polat, M.F.; Taysi, S.; Bakan, E.; Çapoğlu, I. Serum Lipoprotein(a) Level and its Clinical Significance in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Clin. Rheumatol. 2002, 21, 520–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szabó, M.Z.; Szodoray, P.; Kiss, E. Dyslipidemia in systemic lupus erythematosus. Immunol. Res. 2017, 65, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ginsberg, H.N. Lipoprotein physiology. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. N. Am. 1998, 27, 503–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ebrahim, S.; Davey Smith, G. Mendelian randomization: Can genetic epidemiology help redress the failures of observational epidemiology? Hum. Genet. 2008, 123, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Workflow of two-sample MR for causal effect between blood lipid levels and SLE.
Table 1.
Two-sample Mendelian randomization of blood lipids levels and the risk of SLE.
| Exposures and Methods | SNPs | Beta | OR (95%CI) | p Value for Association | p Value for Cochran Q Test | p Value for MR-Egger Intercept |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDL cholesterol | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 100 | 0.124 | 1.131 (0.838, 1.528) | 0.420 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 100 | 0.124 | 1.131 (0.906, 1.414) | 0.277 | ||
| MR-Egger | 100 | 0.326 | 1.385 (0.870, 2.204) | 0.172 | 0.266 | |
| Weighted median | 100 | 0.281 | 1.325 (0.933, 1.882) | 0.116 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 100 | 0.125 | 1.133 (0.906, 1.418) | 0.273 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 100 | 0.027 | 1.027 (0.809, 1.305) | 0.825 | ||
| HDL cholesterol | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 233 | 0.089 | 1.093 (0.884, 1.352) | 0.412 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 233 | 0.089 | 1.093 (0.931, 1.284) | 0.277 | ||
| MR-Egger | 233 | 0.175 | 1.191 (0.860, 1.650) | 0.294 | 0.497 | |
| Weighted median | 233 | 0.094 | 1.099 (0.820, 1.471) | 0.528 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 233 | 0.090 | 1.095 (0.931, 1.287) | 0.274 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 233 | 0.084 | 1.088 (0.889, 1.331) | 0.412 | ||
| Triglycerides | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 188 | −0.103 | 0.903 (0.716, 1.137) | 0.384 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 188 | −0.269 | 0.764 (0.634, 0.920) | 0.562 | ||
| MR-Egger | 188 | −0.006 | 0.994 (0.682, 1.448) | 0.974 | 0.525 | |
| Weighted median | 188 | −0.263 | 0.769 (0.547, 1.082) | 0.131 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 188 | 0.269 | 0.764 (0.633, 0.923) | 0.424 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 188 | −0.098 | 0.907 (0.724, 1.136) | 0.394 | ||
| Apolipoprotein A-I | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 172 | −0.157 | 0.854 (0.680, 1.074) | 0.177 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 172 | −0.157 | 0.854 (0.709, 1.030) | 0.099 | ||
| MR-Egger | 172 | 0.036 | 1.036 (0.714, 1.505) | 0.851 | 0.202 | |
| Weighted median | 172 | 0.001 | 1.001 (0.737, 1.359) | 0.997 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 172 | −0.159 | 0.853 (0.707, 1.030) | 0.099 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 172 | −0.089 | 0.915 (0.737, 1.135) | 0.419 | ||
| Apolipoprotein B | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 117 | −0.069 | 0.933 (0.719, 1.211) | 0.605 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 117 | −0.069 | 0.933 (0.778, 1.120) | 0.460 | ||
| MR-Egger | 117 | 0.064 | 1.066 (0.746, 1.522) | 0.727 | 0.288 | |
| Weighted median | 117 | −0.025 | 0.975 (0.715, 1.329) | 0.872 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 117 | −0.684 | 0.934(0.777, 1.122) | 0.465 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 117 | −0.101 | 0.904 (0.750, 1.089) | 0.290 |
IVW(re), random-effects inverse-variance weighted method; IVW(fe), fixed-effects inverse-variance weighted method; RAPS, robust adjusted profile score.
Table 2.
Two-sample Mendelian randomization of SLE and the risk of blood lipid levels.
| Outcomes and Methods | SNPs | Beta | OR (95%CI) | p Value for Association | p Value for Cochran Q Test | p Value for MR-Egger Intercept |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDL cholesterol | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 33 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.994, 1.001) | 0.166 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 33 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.995, 1.000) | 0.953 | ||
| MR-Egger | 33 | 0.002 | 1.002 (0.995, 1.010) | 0.526 | 0.164 | |
| Weighted median | 33 | −0.001 | 0.999 (0.995, 1.003) | 0.634 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 33 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.994, 1.001) | 0.974 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 33 | −0.003 | 0.997 (0.993, 1.001) | 0.077 | ||
| HDL cholesterol | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 29 | −0.007 | 0.993 (0.988, 0.997) | 0.002 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 29 | −0.007 | 0.993 (0.990, 0.996) | 0.001 | ||
| MR-Egger | 29 | −0.004 | 0.996 (0.986, 1.006) | 0.471 | 0.466 | |
| Weighted median | 29 | −0.004 | 0.996 (0.991, 1.000) | 0.060 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 29 | −0.007 | 0.993 (0.990, 0.996) | 0.001 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 29 | −0.006 | 0.994 (0.988, 1.000) | 0.054 | ||
| Triglycerides | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 31 | −0.004 | 0.996 (0.993, 0.999) | 0.010 | 0.122 | |
| IVW(fe) | 31 | −0.004 | 0.996 (0.993, 0.999) | 0.003 | ||
| MR-Egger | 31 | −0.003 | 0.997 (0.991, 1.004) | 0.472 | 0.658 | |
| Weighted median | 31 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.994, 1.002) | 0.285 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 31 | −0.004 | 0.996 (0.993, 0.999) | 0.003 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 31 | −0.004 | 0.996 (0.902, 0.909) | 0.010 | ||
| Apolipoprotein A-I | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 25 | −0.005 | 0.995 (0.990, 0.999) | 0.026 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 25 | −0.005 | 0.995 (0.992, 0.998) | 0.001 | ||
| MR-Egger | 25 | −0.005 | 0.995 (0.983, 1.006) | 0.373 | 0.988 | |
| Weighted median | 25 | −0.005 | 0.995 (0.990, 1.000) | 0.075 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 25 | −0.005 | 0.995 (0.991, 0.998) | 0.001 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 25 | −0.005 | 0.995 (0.989, 1.000) | 0.082 | ||
| Apolipoprotein B | ||||||
| IVW(re) | 33 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.994, 1.001) | 0.229 | <0.05 | |
| IVW(fe) | 33 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.995, 1.001) | 0.111 | ||
| MR-Egger | 33 | 0.004 | 1.004 (0.996, 1.012) | 0.341 | 0.098 | |
| Weighted median | 33 | −0.003 | 0.997 (0.993, 1.002) | 0.265 | ||
| Maximum likelihood | 33 | −0.002 | 0.998 (0.995, 1.001) | 0.115 | ||
| MR.RAPS | 33 | −0.003 | 0.997 (0.993, 1.001) | 0.050 |
IVW(re), random-effects inverse-variance weighted method; IVW(fe), fixed-effects inverse-variance weighted method; RAPS, robust adjusted profile score.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ding, Y.; Fan, S.; Tang, Y.; He, M.; Ren, M.; Shi, Y.; Tao, X.; Lu, W. The Association between Blood Lipids and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Research. Metabolites 2023, 13, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo13010027
AMA Style
Ding Y, Fan S, Tang Y, He M, Ren M, Shi Y, Tao X, Lu W. The Association between Blood Lipids and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Research. Metabolites. 2023; 13(1):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo13010027
Chicago/Turabian StyleDing, Yang, Shasha Fan, Yi Tang, Mengjiao He, Mingyang Ren, Yunjuan Shi, Xiaohua Tao, and Wei Lu. 2023. "The Association between Blood Lipids and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Research" Metabolites 13, no. 1: 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo13010027
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
