Back

APOB to estimated APOB ratio for screening for the APOE2 genotype

Auger, C.; Sampson, M.; Zubiran, R.; Cole, J.; Wolska, A.; Otvos, J. D.; Sniderman, A. D.; Remaley, A. T.

2026-01-30 pathology
10.64898/2026.01.29.26345063 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundFamilial dysbetalipoproteinemia (FDB) is a genetic lipoprotein disorder that can develop in patients homozygous for the APOE2 genotype ({varepsilon}2/{varepsilon}2). It is associated with decreased clearance of remnant lipoproteins and increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk disproportionate to their level of LDL-C. A goal of this study was to develop a screening test for the {varepsilon}2/{varepsilon}2 genotype based on routinely available lipid tests and to determine those at most risk for ASCVD. MethodsAfter assembly of a primary prevention cohort from the UK Biobank (n= 269,895), gene array and exome data was utilized to classify patients as being {varepsilon}2/{varepsilon}2 genotype positive or negative. Lipid profiles and APOB levels were extracted and the number of ASCVD events was tabulated during a 15-year follow-up period. ResultsUsing a newly developed equation for estimating APOB (eAPOB) with lipid panel test results, the ratio of measured APOB to eAPOB was better than any other individual lipid test or ratio for identifying patients with the {varepsilon}2/{varepsilon}2 genotype (AUC: APOB/eAPOB: 0.990 (0.986-0.994), nonHDL-C/APOB: 0.961 (0.952-0.970), APOB: 0.955 (0.949-0.961), VLDL/TG: 0.788 (0.771-0.804)). The majority of {varepsilon}2/{varepsilon}2 patients could be identified with the APOB/eAPOB ratio even before they expressed the FDB phenotype with elevated TG and nonHDL-C. The PCE or PREVENT risk equations were the most accurate method for identifying higher risk patients (AUC: PREVENT: 0.690 (0.637-0.742), PCE: 0.697 (0.645-0.749)). ConclusionThe APOB/eAPOB ratio can be used to accurately identify the {varepsilon}2/{varepsilon}2 genotype and conventional risk equations are the best method for determining those at risk for ASCVD.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.1%
7
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
8
Journal of Lipid Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
9
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
10
Metabolism
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
11
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
12
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
13
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
14
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
15
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
15 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
16
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
17
JACC: Basic to Translational Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
18
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.6%