4.8 Article

Using human genetics to understand the disease impacts of testosterone in men and women

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 252-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-0751-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [SZ-245 50371-GLUCOSEGENES-FP7-IDEAS-ERC]
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Royal Society [104150/Z/14/Z]
  4. Academy of Medical Sciences Springboard award - Wellcome Trust
  5. GCRF [SBF004\1079]
  6. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12015/1, MC_UU_12015/2]
  7. MRC [MC_UU_00006/2, MC_UU_00002/7, MC_UU_12015/1, MC_PC_12028, MC_UU_12015/2, MR/T002239/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic analysis of data from over 400,000 participants in the UK Biobank Study shows that circulating testosterone levels have sex-specific implications for cardiometabolic diseases and cancer outcomes. Testosterone supplementation is commonly used for its effects on sexual function, bone health and body composition, yet its effects on disease outcomes are unknown. To better understand this, we identified genetic determinants of testosterone levels and related sex hormone traits in 425,097 UK Biobank study participants. Using 2,571 genome-wide significant associations, we demonstrate that the genetic determinants of testosterone levels are substantially different between sexes and that genetically higher testosterone is harmful for metabolic diseases in women but beneficial in men. For example, a genetically determined 1 s.d. higher testosterone increases the risks of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio (OR) = 1.37 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.22-1.53)) and polycystic ovary syndrome (OR = 1.51 (95% CI: 1.33-1.72)) in women, but reduces type 2 diabetes risk in men (OR = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76-0.98)). We also show adverse effects of higher testosterone on breast and endometrial cancers in women and prostate cancer in men. Our findings provide insights into the disease impacts of testosterone and highlight the importance of sex-specific genetic analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据