4.7 Article

Differential and shared genetic effects on kidney function between diabetic and non-diabetic individuals

Journal

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03448-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [387509280-SFB1350]
  2. VACSRD MVP [CX001897]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A large-scale GWAS study identified significant genetic effects of diabetes and genes on glomerular filtration rate, with potential loci associated with diabetic kidney disease. The study also highlighted genes that may inform the development of reno-protective drugs.
A large-scale GWAS provides insight on diabetes-dependent genetic effects on the glomerular filtration rate, a common metric to monitor kidney health in disease. Reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can progress to kidney failure. Risk factors include genetics and diabetes mellitus (DM), but little is known about their interaction. We conducted genome-wide association meta-analyses for estimated GFR based on serum creatinine (eGFR), separately for individuals with or without DM (n(DM) = 178,691, n(noDM) = 1,296,113). Our genome-wide searches identified (i) seven eGFR loci with significant DM/noDM-difference, (ii) four additional novel loci with suggestive difference and (iii) 28 further novel loci (including CUBN) by allowing for potential difference. GWAS on eGFR among DM individuals identified 2 known and 27 potentially responsible loci for diabetic kidney disease. Gene prioritization highlighted 18 genes that may inform reno-protective drug development. We highlight the existence of DM-only and noDM-only effects, which can inform about the target group, if respective genes are advanced as drug targets. Largely shared effects suggest that most drug interventions to alter eGFR should be effective in DM and noDM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available