Beyond Genotype: Multidomain Biomarker-Integrated Risk Scores Reveal Prognostic phenotypes Among Individuals with High-Risk APOL1 Genotypes
Vasquez Rios, G.; Chauhan, K.; Naik, N.; Pattharanitima, P.; Chan, L.; Campbell, K. N.; Nadkarni, G. N.; Coca, S. G.
Show abstract
Introduction: APOL1 high-risk variants markedly increase susceptibility to kidney disease among individuals of African ancestry; however, only a subset of carriers develops clinically significant CKD or ESKD. This discrepancy highlights a gap between genetic risk and clinical trajectory. Current prognostic tools rely primarily on eGFR and albuminuria, which incompletely reflect the underlying biological processes driving APOL1-associated kidney injury. We hypothesized that plasma biomarkers reflecting inflammatory and tubular injury pathways could identify biologically active disease states within this genetically high-risk population and improve prognostic stratification. Methods: Participants from the Mount Sinai BioMe Biobank carrying two APOL1 high-risk alleles (G1, G1; G1, G2; or G2 G2) were followed for a median of 6 years. Baseline plasma biomarkers of inflammation and tubular injury (TNFR1, TNFR2, KIM-1, MCP-1, YKL-40, IL-18, suPAR) were measured. The composite outcome was sustained 40% decline in eGFR or ESKD. Multivariable Cox models assessed associations between biomarkers and outcomes. A weighted biomarker risk score was derived from tertile-based hazard ratios and categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups. Results: Among 498 participants (median eGFR 83 ml/min/1.73 m2), 80 (16.1%) reached the composite outcome. Higher concentrations of TNFR1, TNFR2, suPAR, KIM-1, and IL-18 were independently associated with kidney events after multivariable adjustment. Event rates were 7% in the low-risk group, 16% in the moderate-risk group, and 36% in the high-risk group. Conclusions: Plasma biomarkers reflecting inflammatory and tubular injury pathways reveal marked heterogeneity in kidney outcomes among individuals with high-risk APOL1 genotypes. Integration of these signals into a biology-weighted score identifies distinct prognostic phenotypes beyond genotype and traditional clinical measures, supporting multidomain biomarker frameworks for risk stratification and potential trial enrichment in APOL1-associated kidney disease.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential contributes to accelerated chronic kidney disease progression 97%
- HBA Copy Number and Kidney Disease Risk among Black Americans: a Longitudinal Cohort Study 97%
- 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 94%
- Comparison of low eGFR prevalence and prediction for mortality using 2009 and 2021 CKD-EPI equations in Mexican adults 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nephron Number and Kidney Outcomes in IgA Nephropathy: A Retrospective Cohort Study 95%
- Peripheral Transcriptomics in Acute and Long-Term Kidney Dysfunction in SARS-CoV2 Infection 94%
- Packed Red Blood Cell and Whole Blood Perfusates during an Ex-vivo Normothermic Perfusion for Assessment of High-Risk Donor Kidneys 93%
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%
- Kidney transcriptomics signature of prospective rapid diabetic kidney disease progression 94%
- Multimodal predictions of end stage chronic kidney disease from asymptomatic individuals for discovery of genomic biomarkers 93%
"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.