Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 23;17(3):e1003062.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003062. eCollection 2020 Mar.

Evaluating the Relationship Between Circulating Lipoprotein Lipids and Apolipoproteins With Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Multivariable Mendelian Randomisation Analysis

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Evaluating the Relationship Between Circulating Lipoprotein Lipids and Apolipoproteins With Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Multivariable Mendelian Randomisation Analysis

Tom G Richardson et al. PLoS Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Circulating lipoprotein lipids cause coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the precise way in which one or more lipoprotein lipid-related entities account for this relationship remains unclear. Using genetic instruments for lipoprotein lipid traits implemented through multivariable Mendelian randomisation (MR), we sought to compare their causal roles in the aetiology of CHD.

Methods and findings: We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of circulating non-fasted lipoprotein lipid traits in the UK Biobank (UKBB) for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B to identify lipid-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Using data from CARDIoGRAMplusC4D for CHD (consisting of 60,801 cases and 123,504 controls), we performed univariable and multivariable MR analyses. Similar GWAS and MR analyses were conducted for high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I. The GWAS of lipids and apolipoproteins in the UKBB included between 393,193 and 441,016 individuals in whom the mean age was 56.9 y (range 39-73 y) and of whom 54.2% were women. The mean (standard deviation) lipid concentrations were LDL cholesterol 3.57 (0.87) mmol/L and HDL cholesterol 1.45 (0.38) mmol/L, and the median triglycerides was 1.50 (IQR = 1.11) mmol/L. The mean (standard deviation) values for apolipoproteins B and A-I were 1.03 (0.24) g/L and 1.54 (0.27) g/L, respectively. The GWAS identified multiple independent SNPs associated at P < 5 × 10-8 for LDL cholesterol (220), apolipoprotein B (n = 255), triglycerides (440), HDL cholesterol (534), and apolipoprotein A-I (440). Between 56%-93% of SNPs identified for each lipid trait had not been previously reported in large-scale GWASs. Almost half (46%) of these SNPs were associated at P < 5 × 10-8 with more than one lipid-related trait. Assessed individually using MR, LDL cholesterol (odds ratio [OR] 1.66 per 1-standard-deviation-higher trait; 95% CI: 1.49-1.86; P < 0.001), triglycerides (OR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.25-1.44; P < 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (OR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.56-1.91; P < 0.001) had effect estimates consistent with a higher risk of CHD. In multivariable MR, only apolipoprotein B (OR 1.92; 95% CI: 1.31-2.81; P < 0.001) retained a robust effect, with the estimate for LDL cholesterol (OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.57-1.27; P = 0.44) reversing and that of triglycerides (OR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.23; P = 0.01) becoming weaker. Individual MR analyses showed a 1-standard-deviation-higher HDL cholesterol (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.75-0.86; P < 0.001) and apolipoprotein A-I (OR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77-0.89; P < 0.001) to lower the risk of CHD, but these effect estimates attenuated substantially to the null on accounting for apolipoprotein B. A limitation is that, owing to the nature of lipoprotein metabolism, measures related to the composition of lipoprotein particles are highly correlated, creating a challenge in making exclusive interpretations on causation of individual components.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that apolipoprotein B is the predominant trait that accounts for the aetiological relationship of lipoprotein lipids with risk of CHD.

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: BAF reports receiving grants from Amgen, Merck & Co., Novartis, and Esperion Therapeutics; consulting or advisory board fees from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck & Co., Pfizer, CiVi BioPhama, and KrKA Pharmaceuticals; and grants from Merck & Co., Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Mylan, Ionis, dalCOR, Silence Therapeutics, Integral Therapeutics, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Phamaceuticals, American College of Cardiology, European Atherosclerosis Society, and European Society of Cardiology. MVH has collaborated with Boehringer Ingelheim in research, and in accordance with the policy of the The Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (University of Oxford), did not accept any personal payment. GDS is an Academic Editor on PLOS Medicine's editorial board. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Manhattan plots showing findings from the GWAS of lipoprotein lipid-related traits in the UKBB.
Horizontal dotted line illustrates the Y-axis value conventionally used to denote a SNP that reaches statistical significance in the GWAS, i.e., at P < 5 × 10−8. GWAS, genome-wide association study; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; UKBB, UK Biobank.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Characteristics of genetic instruments developed for lipoprotein lipid-related traits.
(A) Overlap of SNPs and (B) associations with lipids and apolipoproteins. In Panel A, SNPs are grouped according to whether they associate with only the primary lipid-related trait of interest or whether they associate with other traits, based on P < 5 × 10−8. Panel B displays the associations of genetic instruments with lipid-related traits using the inverse variance weighting approach. Whilst we note the potential for overfitting of estimates displayed in Panel B, we present these data for illustrative purposes; the MR estimates presented in Fig 3 use a two-sample approach (with no overlapping data). CI, confidence interval; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; MR, Mendelian randomisation; NA, not applicable; SD, standard deviation; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Univariable and multivariable MR of so-called (A) atherogenic and (B) protective lipoprotein lipids and apolipoproteins and risk of CHD. In both (A) and (B), univariable MR estimates were derived using the inverse variance weighted approach. For a more comprehensive repertoire of estimates derived from univariable MR approaches, please see S2 Fig. CHD, coronary heart disease; CI, confidence interval; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; MR, Mendelian randomisation; SD, standard deviation; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

Similar articles

  • Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart disease.
    Holmes MV, Asselbergs FW, Palmer TM, Drenos F, Lanktree MB, Nelson CP, Dale CE, Padmanabhan S, Finan C, Swerdlow DI, Tragante V, van Iperen EP, Sivapalaratnam S, Shah S, Elbers CC, Shah T, Engmann J, Giambartolomei C, White J, Zabaneh D, Sofat R, McLachlan S; UCLEB consortium, Doevendans PA, Balmforth AJ, Hall AS, North KE, Almoguera B, Hoogeveen RC, Cushman M, Fornage M, Patel SR, Redline S, Siscovick DS, Tsai MY, Karczewski KJ, Hofker MH, Verschuren WM, Bots ML, van der Schouw YT, Melander O, Dominiczak AF, Morris R, Ben-Shlomo Y, Price J, Kumari M, Baumert J, Peters A, Thorand B, Koenig W, Gaunt TR, Humphries SE, Clarke R, Watkins H, Farrall M, Wilson JG, Rich SS, de Bakker PI, Lange LA, Davey Smith G, Reiner AP, Talmud PJ, Kivimäki M, Lawlor DA, Dudbridge F, Samani NJ, Keating BJ, Hingorani AD, Casas JP. Holmes MV, et al. Eur Heart J. 2015 Mar 1;36(9):539-50. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht571. Epub 2014 Jan 27. Eur Heart J. 2015. PMID: 24474739 Free PMC article.
  • Genetic Association of Lipids and Lipid Drug Targets With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Meta-analysis.
    Harrison SC, Holmes MV, Burgess S, Asselbergs FW, Jones GT, Baas AF, van 't Hof FN, de Bakker PIW, Blankensteijn JD, Powell JT, Saratzis A, de Borst GJ, Swerdlow DI, van der Graaf Y, van Rij AM, Carey DJ, Elmore JR, Tromp G, Kuivaniemi H, Sayers RD, Samani NJ, Bown MJ, Humphries SE. Harrison SC, et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Jan 1;3(1):26-33. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.4293. JAMA Cardiol. 2018. PMID: 29188294 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Clinical utility of different lipid measures for prediction of coronary heart disease in men and women.
    Ingelsson E, Schaefer EJ, Contois JH, McNamara JR, Sullivan L, Keyes MJ, Pencina MJ, Schoonmaker C, Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Ingelsson E, et al. JAMA. 2007 Aug 15;298(7):776-85. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.7.776. JAMA. 2007. PMID: 17699011
  • Association of Triglyceride-Lowering LPL Variants and LDL-C-Lowering LDLR Variants With Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.
    Ference BA, Kastelein JJP, Ray KK, Ginsberg HN, Chapman MJ, Packard CJ, Laufs U, Oliver-Williams C, Wood AM, Butterworth AS, Di Angelantonio E, Danesh J, Nicholls SJ, Bhatt DL, Sabatine MS, Catapano AL. Ference BA, et al. JAMA. 2019 Jan 29;321(4):364-373. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.20045. JAMA. 2019. PMID: 30694319 Free PMC article.
  • Role of lipid and lipoprotein profiles in risk assessment and therapy.
    Ballantyne CM, Hoogeveen RC. Ballantyne CM, et al. Am Heart J. 2003 Aug;146(2):227-33. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(02)94701-0. Am Heart J. 2003. PMID: 12891189 Review.
See all similar articles

References

    1. Cholesterol Treatment Trialist's Collaborators, Fulcher J, O'Connell R, Voysey M, Emberson J, Blackwell L, et al. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;385(9976):1397–405. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61368-4 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaborators, Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, Holland LE, Reith C, et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670–81. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaborators, Mihaylova B, Emberson J, Blackwell L, Keech A, Simes J, et al. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;380(9841):581–90. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60367-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Silverman MG, Ference BA, Im K, Wiviott SD, Giugliano RP, Grundy SM, et al. Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Jama. 2016;316(12):1289–97. 10.1001/jama.2016.13985 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Collins R, Reith C, Emberson J, Armitage J, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. The Lancet. 2016;388(10059):2532–61. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31357-5 - DOI - PubMed

Grant support

TGR, ES, and GDS work in the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, which is supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1 and MC_UU-00011/2). TGR is a UKRI Innovation Research Fellow (MR/S003886/1). MAK is supported by a Senior Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (APP1158958) and a research grant from the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, Finland. BAF is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 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. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Feedback