Cited by 213Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenomics and Rare Diseases

Refinement of variant selection for the LDL cholesterol genetic risk score in the diagnosis of the polygenic form of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia and replication in samples from 6 countries

Open access
Futema, Marta, Shah, Sonia, Cooper, Jackie A, Li, KaWah, Whittall, Ros A, Sharifi, Mahtab, Goldberg, Olivia, Drogari, Euridiki +18 more·2015·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal-dominant disorder caused by mutations in 1 of 3 genes. In the 60% of patients who are mutation negative, we have recently shown that the clinical phenotype can be associated with an accumulation of common small-effect LDL cholesterol (LDL-C)-raising alleles by use of a 12–single nucleotide polymorphism (12-SNP) score. The aims of the study were to improve the selection of SNPs and replicate the results in additional samples. METHODS: We used ROC curves to determine the optimum number of LDL-C SNPs. For replication analysis, we genotyped patients with a clinical diagnosis of FH from 6 countries for 6 LDL-C-associated alleles. We compared the weighted SNP score among patients with no confirmed mutation (FH/M–), those with a mutation (FH/M+), and controls from a UK population sample (WHII). RESULTS: Increasing the number of SNPs to 33 did not improve the ability of the score to discriminate between FH/M– and controls, whereas sequential removal of SNPs with smaller effects/lower frequency showed that a weighted score of 6 SNPs performed as well as the 12-SNP score. Metaanalysis of the weighted 6-SNP score, on the basis of polymorphisms in CELSR2 (cadherin, EGF LAG 7-pass G-type receptor 2), APOB (apolipoprotein B), ABCG5/8 [ATP-binding cassette, sub-family G (WHITE), member 5/8], LDLR (low density lipoprotein receptor), and APOE (apolipoprotein E) loci, in the independent FH/M– cohorts showed a consistently higher score in comparison to the WHII population (P < 2.2 × 10−16). Modeling in individuals with a 6-SNP score in the top three-fourths of the score distribution indicated a >95% likelihood of a polygenic explanation of their increased LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: A 6-SNP LDL-C score consistently distinguishes FH/M– patients from healthy individuals. The hypercholesterolemia in 88% of mutation-negative patients is likely to have a polygenic basis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2014.231365

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • With increasing knowledge, the importance of a polygenic background to familial hyperlipidaemias is emphasized.

    “With increasing knowledge about common polymorphisms and lipoproteins, the importance of a polygenic background to familial hyperlipidaemias is emphasized. 67,122”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [122]

  • The importance of a polygenic background to familial hyperlipidaemias is emphasized with increasing knowledge.

    “With increasing knowledge about common polymorphisms and lipoproteins, the importance of a polygenic background to familial hyperlipidaemias is emphasized.67,122”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [122]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Futema, M., Shah, S., Cooper, J. A., Li, K., Whittall, R. A., Sharifi, M., Goldberg, O., Drogari, E., Mollaki, V., Wiegman, A., Defesche, J., D'Agostino, M. N., D'Angelo, A., Rubba, P., Fortunato, G., Waluś-Miarka, M., Hegele, R. A., Aderayo Bamimore, M., Durst, R., Leitersdorf, E., Mulder, M. T., Roeters van Lennep, J. E., Sijbrands, E. J. G., Whittaker, J. C., Talmud, P. J., & Humphries, S. E.
Affiliations
  • British Heart Foundation (GB)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Department of Pediatrics and
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • CEINGE S.C.a r.l. Advanced Biotechnology, Naples, Italy
  • Federico II University Hospital (IT)
  • CEINGE Biotecnologie Avanzate Franco Salvatore (Italy) (IT)
  • Department of Metabolic Diseases and Department of Medical Didactics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  • Robarts Research Institute (CA)
  • Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada
  • Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Departments of Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Humphries, Steve E
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2015-01-01
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
231-238
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2109770394
Cited by
213
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 1
FWCI
21.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Health and Safety Executive
  • Department of Health Research
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL36310)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG13196)
  • Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (HS06516)
  • British Heart Foundation BHF (PG08/008)
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • University College London
  • Athens University of Economics and Business
  • Netherlands Heart Foundation (2006B190)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
familial hypercholesterolemia, LDL cholesterol, polygenic risk score, single nucleotide polymorphisms, polygenic hypercholesterolemia, LDL receptor, apolipoprotein B, ABCG5/8, apolipoprotein E, CELSR2, genetic risk prediction, replication
MeSH terms
Proprotein Convertase 9, Adolescent, Adult, Alleles, Apolipoproteins B, Canada, Child, Europe, Female, Humans, Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II, Israel, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Receptors, LDL, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Serine Endopeptidases, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, Multifactorial Inheritance, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Proprotein Convertases, Young Adult

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