OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to discover common variants in 6 lipid metabolic genes and construct and validate a genetic risk score (GRS) based on the joint effects of genetic variants in multiple genes from lipid and other pathobiologic pathways. BACKGROUND: Explaining the genetic basis of coronary artery disease (CAD) is incomplete. Discovery and aggregation of genetic variants from multiple pathways may advance this objective. METHODS: Premature CAD cases (n = 1,947) and CAD-free controls (n = 1,036) were selected from our angiographic registry. In a discovery phase, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 56 loci from internal discovery and external reports were tested for associations with biomarkers and CAD: 28 promising SNPs were then tested jointly for CAD associations, and a GRS consisting of SNPs contributing independently was constructed and validated in a replication set of familial cases and population-based controls (n = 1,320). RESULTS: Five variants contributed jointly to CAD prediction in a multigenic GRS model: odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.16-1.33) per risk allele, P = 8.2 x 10(-11), adjusted OR 2.03 (1.53-2.70), fourth versus first quartile. 5-SNP genetic risk score had minor impact on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (P > .05) but resulted in substantial net reclassification improvement: 0.16 overall, 0.28 in intermediate-risk patients (both P < .0001). GRS(5) predicted familial CAD with similar magnitude in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: The Intermountain Healthcare's Coronary Genetics study demonstrates the ability of a multigenic, multipathway GRS to improve discrimination of angiographic CAD. Genetic risk scores promise to increase understanding of the genetic basis of CAD and improve identification of individuals at increased CAD risk. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to discover common variants in 6 lipid metabolic genes and construct and validate a genetic risk score (GRS) based on the joint effects of genetic variants in multiple genes from lipid and other pathobiologic pathways. BACKGROUND: Explaining the genetic basis of coronary artery disease (CAD) is incomplete. Discovery and aggregation of genetic variants from multiple pathways may advance this objective. METHODS: Premature CAD cases (n = 1,947) and CAD-free controls (n = 1,036) were selected from our angiographic registry. In a discovery phase, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 56 loci from internal discovery and external reports were tested for associations with biomarkers and CAD: 28 promising SNPs were then tested jointly for CAD associations, and a GRS consisting of SNPs contributing independently was constructed and validated in a replication set of familial cases and population-based controls (n = 1,320). RESULTS: Five variants contributed jointly to CAD prediction in a multigenic GRS model: odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.16-1.33) per risk allele, P = 8.2 x 10(-11), adjusted OR 2.03 (1.53-2.70), fourth versus first quartile. 5-SNP genetic risk score had minor impact on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (P > .05) but resulted in substantial net reclassification improvement: 0.16 overall, 0.28 in intermediate-risk patients (both P < .0001). GRS(5) predicted familial CAD with similar magnitude in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: The Intermountain Healthcare's Coronary Genetics study demonstrates the ability of a multigenic, multipathway GRS to improve discrimination of angiographic CAD. Genetic risk scores promise to increase understanding of the genetic basis of CAD and improve identification of individuals at increased CAD risk. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Benjamin D Horne; Nicola J Camp; John F Carlquist; Joseph B Muhlestein; Matthew J Kolek; Zachary P Nicholas; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jeffrey L Anderson; Benjamin D Horne; Matthew J Kolek; Joseph B Muhlestein; Chrissa P Mower; James J Park; Heidi T May; Nicola J Camp; John F Carlquist Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-10-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Nina P Paynter; Daniel I Chasman; Julie E Buring; Dov Shiffman; Nancy R Cook; Paul M Ridker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: N J Samani; P Deloukas; J Erdmann; C Hengstenberg; K Kuulasmaa; R McGinnis; H Schunkert; N Soranzo; J Thompson; L Tiret; A Ziegler Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Bing Yu; Yan Zheng; Danny Alexander; Teri A Manolio; Alvaro Alonso; Jennifer A Nettleton; Eric Boerwinkle Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2013-08-11 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Jennifer R Dungan; Xuejun Qin; Benjamin D Horne; John F Carlquist; Abanish Singh; Melissa Hurdle; Elizabeth Grass; Carol Haynes; Simon G Gregory; Svati H Shah; Elizabeth R Hauser; William E Kraus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simone Cristina Pinto Matheus Fischer; Simone Pires Pinto; Lívia Campos do Amaral Silva Lins; Henrique Tria Bianco; Carlos Manoel de Castro Monteiro; Luiz Fernando Muniz Pinheiro; Francisco Antonio Helfenstein Fonseca; Maria Cristina de Oliveira Izar Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Alessia Di Costanzo; Francesca Belardinilli; Diego Bailetti; Marialuisa Sponziello; Laura D'Erasmo; Licia Polimeni; Francesco Baratta; Daniele Pastori; Fabrizio Ceci; Anna Montali; Gabriella Girelli; Bruna De Masi; Antonio Angeloni; Giuseppe Giannini; Maria Del Ben; Francesco Angelico; Marcello Arca Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 4.379