4.5 Article

Mendelian Randomization Study on Causal Association of Pyroglutamine with COVID-19

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GLOBAL HEALTH
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 541-547

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s44197-022-00073-1

关键词

Pyroglutamine; Genetic variants; COVID-19; Genome-wide association study; Mendelian randomization

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82071758, 32270933]
  2. R&D Program of Beijing Municipal Education Commission [KZ202210025035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis to identify a causal link between genetically increased pyroglutamine and reduced risk of COVID-19. Pyroglutamine may serve as a protective factor for patients with COVID-19.
Background Glutamine family amino acids such as glutamate, pyroglutamate, and glutamine have been shown to play important roles in COVID-19. However, it is still unclear about the role of pyroglutamate in COVID-19. Thus, we use a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to identify the genetic causal link between blood pyroglutamine levels and COVID-19 risk. Methods Pyroglutamine genetic instrumental variables (IVs) were chosen from the largest pyroglutamine-associated genome-wide association studies (GWAS). The largest COVID-19 GWAS dataset was employed to evaluate the causal link between blood pyroglutamine levels and COVID-19 risk using two-sample MR analysis. Results We found no significant pleiotropy or heterogeneity of pyroglutamine-associated genetic IVs in COVID-19 GWAS. Interestingly, we found that as pyroglutamine genetically increased, the risk of COVID-19 decreased using inverse variance weighted (IVW) (Beta = - 0.644, p = 0.003; OR = 0.525, 95% CI [0.346-0.798]) and weighted median (Beta = - 0.609, p = 0.013; OR = 0.544, 95% CI [0.337-0.878]). Conclusion Our analysis suggests a causal link between genetically increased pyroglutamine and reduced risk of COVID-19. Thus, pyroglutamine may be a protective factor for patients with COVID-19.

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

4.5
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