4.8 Article

Genetically predicted ankylosing spondylitis is causally associated with psoriasis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1149206

关键词

ankylosing spondylitis; psoriasis; Mendelian randomization; genome-wide association studies; single-nucleotide polymorphisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis and found a strong association between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriasis, with positive causal effects of AS on the risk of psoriasis in the European population.
BackgroundPrevious observational studies have reported the striking association between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriasis, but the causal relationship between the two diseases remains unclear. MethodsTwo-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis with methods of inverse-variance weighted, MR-Egger regression, weighted median, and weighted mode was conducted to evaluate the bidirectional causal associations between AS and psoriasis. Effective single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were selected as instrumental variables (IVs). Sensitivity analyses were also applied to verify whether heterogeneity and pleiotropy can bias the results. ResultWe found positive causal effects of genetically increased AS risk on psoriasis (IVW: OR = 1.009, 95% CI = 1.005-1.012, p = 8.07E-07). Comparable outcomes were acquired by MR-Egger regression, weighted median, and weighted mode approaches. Nevertheless, we did not find significant causal effects of psoriasis on AS (IVW: OR = 1.183, 95% CI = 0.137-10.199, p = 0.879). The sensitivity analyses showed that the horizontal pleiotropy was unlikely to skew the causality. The leave-one-out analysis demonstrated that no single SNP can drive the MR estimates. No evidence of heterogeneity was found between the selected IVs. ConclusionOur findings provide evidence that AS has positive causal effects on the risk of psoriasis in the European population.

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