Frontiers in genetics · 2024
Bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis investigates causal associations between cathepsins and inflammatory bowel disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Na, Liu Jun, Chai Bao, Yao Jianhong, Du Xufang, Mei Qi, Wang Xuena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cathepsins, key regulators of the pathology of gastrointestinal disorders such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), are a target protease that has attracted much attention in recent years. IBD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disorder of the gut. Traditional studies have shown a correlation between cathepsin and the risk of IBD, while the causal relationship remains unclear.
METHODS: This study utilized Mendelian randomization techniques to evaluate the causal relationships between eleven cathepsins and the subtypes of IBD, such as ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). We also performed a series of sensitivity analyses to validate the primary Mendelian randomization (MR) results, including Cochran's Q test, the MR-PRESSO global test, and the MR pleiotropy test.
RESULTS: The forward MR analyses showed no significant association between cathepsins and IBD. Reverse Mendelian randomization analyses suggested that UC might lead to elevated cathepsin G levels [inverse-variance weighted (IVW): p = 0.038, b = 9.966], and CD might cause a decrease in cathepsin B levels [IVW: p = 0.002, b = -10.525] and cathepsin L1 levels [IVW: p = 0.045, b = -4.742].
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer novel and comprehensive evidence on the impact of UC or CD on cathepsins, potentially providing valuable insights into the treatment and prognosis of IBD.
METHODS: This study utilized Mendelian randomization techniques to evaluate the causal relationships between eleven cathepsins and the subtypes of IBD, such as ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). We also performed a series of sensitivity analyses to validate the primary Mendelian randomization (MR) results, including Cochran's Q test, the MR-PRESSO global test, and the MR pleiotropy test.
RESULTS: The forward MR analyses showed no significant association between cathepsins and IBD. Reverse Mendelian randomization analyses suggested that UC might lead to elevated cathepsin G levels [inverse-variance weighted (IVW): p = 0.038, b = 9.966], and CD might cause a decrease in cathepsin B levels [IVW: p = 0.002, b = -10.525] and cathepsin L1 levels [IVW: p = 0.045, b = -4.742].
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer novel and comprehensive evidence on the impact of UC or CD on cathepsins, potentially providing valuable insights into the treatment and prognosis of IBD.