MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966366847 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070269

Influence of Genetic Variation on Plasma Protein Levels in Older Adults Using a Multi-Analyte Panel

2013· article· en· W1966366847 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sungeun Kim, Shanker Swaminathan, Mark Inlow, Shannon L. Risacher, Kwangsik Nho, Li Shen, Tatiana Foroud, Ronald C. Petersen, Paul Aisen, Holly Soares, Jon B. Toledo, Leslie M. Shaw, John Q. Trojanowski, Michael W. Weiner, Brenna C. McDonald, Martin R. Farlow, Bernardino Ghetti, Andrew J. Saykin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesU.S. National Library of MedicineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of HealthEisaiTranslational Genomics Research InstituteNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversity of California, San DiegoBiogenBioClinicaDana FoundationBayer HealthCareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaAlzheimer's AssociationAmorfix Life SciencesFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenome-wide association studyLinkage disequilibriumSNPGenetic associationBiologyGenetic variationGeneticsGenotypeBioinformaticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteins, widely studied as potential biomarkers, play important roles in numerous physiological functions and diseases. Genetic variation may modulate corresponding protein levels and point to the role of these variants in disease pathophysiology. Effects of individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within a gene were analyzed for corresponding plasma protein levels using genome-wide association study (GWAS) genotype data and proteomic panel data with 132 quality-controlled analytes from 521 Caucasian participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort. Linear regression analysis detected 112 significant (Bonferroni threshold p=2.44×10(-5)) associations between 27 analytes and 112 SNPs. 107 out of these 112 associations were tested in the Indiana Memory and Aging Study (IMAS) cohort for replication and 50 associations were replicated at uncorrected p<0.05 in the same direction of effect as those in the ADNI. We identified multiple novel associations including the association of rs7517126 with plasma complement factor H-related protein 1 (CFHR1) level at p<1.46×10(-60), accounting for 40 percent of total variation of the protein level. We serendipitously found the association of rs6677604 with the same protein at p<9.29×10(-112). Although these two SNPs were not in the strong linkage disequilibrium, 61 percent of total variation of CFHR1 was accounted for by rs6677604 without additional variation by rs7517126 when both SNPs were tested together. 78 other SNP-protein associations in the ADNI sample exceeded genome-wide significance (5×10(-8)). Our results confirmed previously identified gene-protein associations for interleukin-6 receptor, chemokine CC-4, angiotensin-converting enzyme, and angiotensinogen, although the direction of effect was reversed in some cases. This study is among the first analyses of gene-protein product relationships integrating multiplex-panel proteomics and targeted genes extracted from a GWAS array. With intensive searches taking place for proteomic biomarkers for many diseases, the role of genetic variation takes on new importance and should be considered in interpretation of proteomic results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207