4.7 Article

Association between Lipids, Apolipoproteins and Telomere Length: A Mendelian Randomization Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15214497

关键词

lipids; apolipoproteins; telomere length; mendelian randomization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to assess the causal relationship between lipids, apolipoproteins, and telomere length (TL). The results suggest potential positive causal relationships between genetically predicted MUFA, MUFA/FA ratio, LDL-C, VLDL-C, total cholesterol, ApoB, and TG with TL.
(1) Background: The relationship between lipids, apolipoproteins, and telomere length (TL) has been explored in previous studies; however, the causal relationship between the two remains unclear. This study aims to assess the causal relationship between lipids, apolipoproteins, and TL using the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach; (2) Methods: This study comprehensively employed both univariate MR (uvMR) and multivariate MR (mvMR) methods to genetically evaluate the associations between 21 exposures related to lipids and apolipoproteins and the outcome of TL. During the analysis process, we utilized various statistical methods, including Inverse Variance Weighting (IVW), Weighted Median, MR-Egger regression, MR-PRESSO, and outlier tests. Furthermore, to confirm the robustness of the results, we conducted several sensitivity analyses to explore potential heterogeneity; (3) Results: The uvMR analysis indicated that an increase in MUFA, MUFA/FA ratio, LDL-C, VLDL-C, total cholesterol, ApoB, and triglycerides (TG) was associated with an increase in TL. However, this relationship did not manifest in the mvMR analysis, suggesting that this association may be based on preliminary evidence; (4) Conclusions: MR analysis results suggest potential suggestive positive causal relationships between genetically predicted MUFA, MUFA/FA ratio, LDL-C, VLDL-C, total cholesterol, ApoB, and TG with TL.

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

4.7
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