APOL1 Monoallelic and Biallelic genotypes and CKD, Proteinuria and FSGS in African Americans from the Vanderbilt Biobank (BioVU)
Clapp, S.; Triozzi, J.; Yu, Z.; Mamak, F.; Vavilala, S.; Wheless, L.; Corty, R. W.; Chen, H. C.; Wilson, O.; Wang, G.; Bick, A.; Han, L.; Ruderfer, D. M.; Robinson-Cohen, C.; Tao, R.; Hung, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundAfrican Americans are at increased risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) in part due to Apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) high-risk genotypes. Recently, a study from West Africa reported an association between monoallelic genotypes and risk of CKD and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). We here study the association of biallelic and monoallelic genotypes with CKD, proteinuria, and FSGS in participants in a hospital-based cohort in the Southeastern United States. MethodsWe conducted a case-control study of African Ancestry participants from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Biobank (n=23, 857). The primary outcome was CKD defined as: persistent GFR < 60 ml/min, end stage kidney disease (ESKD), biopsy-proven FSGS or urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of >700 mg/g or albumin-to-creatinine ratio of >420 mg/g. Secondary outcomes were proteinuria and FSGS outcomes separately. The primary exposure was APOL1 monoallelic genotype (1 copy of a risk allele versus none). APOL1 biallelic genotypes was studied as a secondary exposure. Sequential logistic regression models were performed adjusting for potential confounders. ResultsAmong 23,857 participants, 5,784 had CKD, 1,533 had proteinuria, and 80 had biopsy-proven FSGS, 44.5% had one risk allele (monoallelic) and 13.6% had two risk alleles (biallelic). Biallelic carriers had higher odds of CKD than those with one or no risk alleles (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-1.89), proteinuria aOR = 2.02 (95% CI, 1.77-2.31), and FSGS aOR = 17.48 (95%CI 10.53-29.02). Monoallelic carriers (G0/G1 or G0/G2) had a small increase in odds of CKD (aOR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16, p=0.04), which was driven by the G0/G2 genotype (aOR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.23, p=0.03). Monoallelic carriers (G0/G1 or G0/G2) had higher odds of proteinuria (aOR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.39) and G0/G1 had higher odds of FSGS (14 cases) (aOR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.18-6.79). ConclusionsIn our study, monoallelic APOL1 genotypes were associated with 23% higher odds of proteinuria and 3-fold higher odds of FSGS for G0/G1. A modest increase odd for CKD of 8%, which may reflect CKD phenotypic heterogeneity. Our study supports the observations from a West Africa cohort in a US based cohort and adds the association of APOL1 monoallelic genotypes with proteinuria.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- HBA Copy Number and Kidney Disease Risk among Black Americans: a Longitudinal Cohort Study 98%
- Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential contributes to accelerated chronic kidney disease progression 96%
- Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential is associated with worse kidney function and anemia in a cohort of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Circulating Plasma Biomarkers in Biopsy-Confirmed Kidney Disease: Results from the Boston Kidney Biopsy Cohort 97%
- Impaired incretin homeostasis in non-diabetic moderate-severe CKD 95%
- Comparison of low eGFR prevalence and prediction for mortality using 2009 and 2021 CKD-EPI equations in Mexican adults 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Trajectories of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores as a predictor for incident chronic kidney disease 95%
- External validation of six clinical models for prediction of unknown chronic kidney disease in a German population 95%
- Comparison of the prevalence and associated factors of chronic kidney disease diagnosed by serum creatinine or cystatin C among young people living with HIV in Uganda 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.