RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Metabolomic signatures of lipid-modifying therapies using drug target Mendelian randomization
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.06.21261699
DO 10.1101/2021.08.06.21261699
A1 Tom G Richardson
A1 Genevieve M Leyden
A1 Qin Wang
A1 Joshua A Bell
A1 Benjamin Elsworth
A1 George Davey Smith
A1 Michael V Holmes
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/07/2021.08.06.21261699.abstract
AB Background Large-scale molecular profiling and genotyping provide a unique opportunity to systematically compare the genetically predicted effects of therapeutic targets on the human metabolome.Methods We firstly constructed genetic risk scores for 8 drug targets on the basis that they primarily modify low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (HMGCR, PCKS9 & NPC1L1), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (CETP), or triglycerides (APOC3, ANGPTL3, ANGPTL4 & LPL). We then used Mendelian randomization to evaluate the effect of each score on coronary artery disease (CAD) risk, and to systematically estimate their effects on 249 metabolic traits derived using blood samples from an unprecedented sample size of up to 115,082 UK Biobank participants.Results There was strong evidence of an effect of drug-based genetic scores on CAD risk with the exception of ANGPTL3. Genetically predicted effects on the blood metabolome were generally consistent amongst drug targets which were intended to modify the same lipoprotein lipid trait. For example, the linear fit for the MR estimates on all 249 metabolic traits for genetically-predicted inhibition of LDL cholesterol lowering targets HMGCR and PCSK9 was r2=0.91. In contrast, comparisons between drug classes that were designed to modify discrete lipoprotein traits typically had very different effects on metabolic signatures (e.g. HMGCR vs all 4 triglyceride targets had r2<0.02), despite largely consistent effects on risk of CAD. Furthermore, we highlight this discrepancy for specific metabolic traits, for example finding that LDL cholesterol lowering therapies typically had a weak effect on glycoprotein acetyls, a marker of inflammation (e.g. PCSK9: Beta=0.01, 95 CI%=-0.06 to 0.08, P=0.78). In contrast, all of the triglyceride modifying therapies assessed provided evidence of a strong effect on lowering levels of this inflammatory biomarker (e.g. LPL: Beta=-0.43, 95 CI%=-0.37 to -0.48, P=9×10−50).Conclusions Multiple lipid-modifying drug targets have therapeutically beneficial effects on CAD risk. Our findings indicate that genetically predicted perturbations of these drug targets on the blood metabolome can drastically differ, with potential implications for biomarkers in clinical development and measuring treatment response.Competing Interest StatementTGR is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk outside of this work. MVH has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, and in adherence to the University of Oxfords Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CSTU) staff policy, did not accept personal honoraria or other payments from pharmaceutical companies. All other co-authors declare no conflict of interest.Funding StatementWe would like to thank the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D consortium for making their summary statistics available for the benefit of this work and to the participants of the UK Biobank study. Additionally, the authors are grateful to UK Biobank for access to data to undertake this study (Project #15825 and #30418). MVH works in a unit that receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship (FS/18/23/33512) and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. George Davey Smith and Joshua Bell work in the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC; approval number: 11/NW/0382) and informed consent was collected from all participants enrolled in UKB.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data analysed in this study is either available from the referenced public repositories or accessible via an approved application to the UK Biobank study. https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access