Cited by 36Lipid metabolism and disordersLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Functional validation of new pathways in lipoprotein metabolism identified by human genetics

Bauer, Robert C, Stylianou, Ioannis M, Rader, Daniel J·2011·Current Opinion in Lipidology

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified approximately 100 genomic loci that are associated with plasma lipid traits, two-thirds of which had never been previously associated with lipoprotein metabolism. Identification of the causal genes and variants, functional validation of these genes and biological pathways, and elucidation of molecular mechanisms is required and poses a daunting task. RECENT FINDINGS: Human genetics have been used to recently 'validate' genes, such as LIPG, SCARB1 and ANGPTL3, which were previously implicated in lipoprotein metabolism through classical wet bench approaches. Additionally, many novel genes have been identified as associated with plasma lipid traits by GWAS, though only relatively few have been functionally validated through targeted sequencing and genetic manipulation in cells and animals. These types of studies have defined new roles in lipid metabolism for the novel lipid genes SORT1 and TRIB1. These examples demonstrate the ways in which human genetics can validate candidate genes, as well as provide a novel discovery that requires functional validation at the bench, and point towards a more complete understanding of the molecular physiology of lipoprotein metabolism. SUMMARY: This review summarizes recent developments in the use of human genetics to validate candidate genes in lipoprotein metabolism as well as in the functional validation of novel GWAS loci associated with plasma lipid traits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mol.0b013e32834469b3

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Few GWAS-significant associations have been confirmed as the true risk variant through molecular, biochemical, or biophysical work.

    “Very few of the thousands of GWAS significant associations have been shown using molecular genetics, biochemistry or biophysics to be the actual risk variant38, 109.”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [109]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, R. C., Stylianou, I. M., & Rader, D. J.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Rader, Daniel J
Venue
Current Opinion in Lipidology
Published
2011-04
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
123-128
ISSN
0957-9672 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2318829551
Cited by
36
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 12
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Lipidology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipid metabolism and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
lipoprotein metabolism, genome-wide association study, functional validation, candidate genes, endothelial lipase, scavenger receptor class B type I, ANGPTL3, SORT1, TRIB1, lipid metabolism genes
MeSH terms
Angiopoietin-like Proteins, Angiopoietin-Like Protein 3, Animals, Humans, Lipoproteins, Signal Transduction, Models, Animal, Angiopoietins, Scavenger Receptors, Class B, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review