Mohammad Sayeef Alam, Brooke N Wolford, Kristian Hveem, Knut E A Lundin, Sebo Withoff, Iris H Jonkers, Ludvig M Sollid, Rebecka Hjort, Eivind Ness-Jensen
{"title":"确诊和未确诊乳糜泻的遗传差异:一项基于人群的研究","authors":"Mohammad Sayeef Alam, Brooke N Wolford, Kristian Hveem, Knut E A Lundin, Sebo Withoff, Iris H Jonkers, Ludvig M Sollid, Rebecka Hjort, Eivind Ness-Jensen","doi":"10.1007/s00439-025-02778-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A large proportion of individuals with celiac disease (CeD) remain undiagnosed, often presenting at an older age of onset or with non-classical symptoms compared to diagnosed cases. Such heterogeneity might be related to genetic factors. The aim was to utilize a CeD-screened adult population to compare the genetic variants in known and newly diagnosed cases. In the fourth wave of the population-based Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4) 826 CeD and 51,516 non-CeD individuals were included. Medical registries identified 361 previously diagnosed cases, while screening identified 465 new cases. A validated polygenic risk score (PRS) was used to assess the genetic risk of CeD among the two case groups versus non-CeD individuals. Additional genetic variants not included in the PRS were also analyzed. The PRS distinguished cases from non-cases with high accuracy (AUROC: 85% for known cases, 83% for new cases). The genetic variation explained by the PRS was similar for known and new cases (17.1% versus 14.5%). The odds ratio for being in the highest genetic risk group (top 10%) was 22.7 (95% CI 14.1-36.4) for known cases and 18.6 (95% CI 12.4-27.9) for new cases versus the median group (40%-60%). Differences in effect size among specific genome-wide variants were observed but were not significantly associated with CeD. A validated PRS showed significant genetic difference between CeD cases and the general population, with similar association in both known and newly diagnosed cases. This suggests that genetic architectures of the two groups are comparable, implying that other non-genetic factors may drive CeD in adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":13175,"journal":{"name":"Human Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genetic differences between diagnosed and undiagnosed Celiac disease: a population-based study.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Sayeef Alam, Brooke N Wolford, Kristian Hveem, Knut E A Lundin, Sebo Withoff, Iris H Jonkers, Ludvig M Sollid, Rebecka Hjort, Eivind Ness-Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00439-025-02778-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A large proportion of individuals with celiac disease (CeD) remain undiagnosed, often presenting at an older age of onset or with non-classical symptoms compared to diagnosed cases. Such heterogeneity might be related to genetic factors. The aim was to utilize a CeD-screened adult population to compare the genetic variants in known and newly diagnosed cases. In the fourth wave of the population-based Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4) 826 CeD and 51,516 non-CeD individuals were included. Medical registries identified 361 previously diagnosed cases, while screening identified 465 new cases. A validated polygenic risk score (PRS) was used to assess the genetic risk of CeD among the two case groups versus non-CeD individuals. Additional genetic variants not included in the PRS were also analyzed. The PRS distinguished cases from non-cases with high accuracy (AUROC: 85% for known cases, 83% for new cases). The genetic variation explained by the PRS was similar for known and new cases (17.1% versus 14.5%). The odds ratio for being in the highest genetic risk group (top 10%) was 22.7 (95% CI 14.1-36.4) for known cases and 18.6 (95% CI 12.4-27.9) for new cases versus the median group (40%-60%). Differences in effect size among specific genome-wide variants were observed but were not significantly associated with CeD. A validated PRS showed significant genetic difference between CeD cases and the general population, with similar association in both known and newly diagnosed cases. This suggests that genetic architectures of the two groups are comparable, implying that other non-genetic factors may drive CeD in adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-025-02778-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-025-02778-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
很大一部分患有乳糜泻(CeD)的个体仍未被诊断出来,与确诊病例相比,通常在发病年龄较大时出现或出现非典型症状。这种异质性可能与遗传因素有关。目的是利用ced筛查的成人人群来比较已知和新诊断病例的遗传变异。在第四波基于人群的Trøndelag健康研究(HUNT4)中,纳入了826名CeD和51,516名非CeD个体。医疗登记处发现了361例先前诊断的病例,而筛查发现了465例新病例。一个有效的多基因风险评分(PRS)被用来评估两个病例组与非CeD个体之间的CeD遗传风险。还分析了未包括在PRS中的其他遗传变异。PRS区分病例和非病例的准确率很高(AUROC:已知病例85%,新病例83%)。PRS解释的遗传变异在已知病例和新病例中相似(17.1%对14.5%)。与中位组(40%-60%)相比,已知病例的最高遗传风险组(前10%)的优势比为22.7 (95% CI 14.1-36.4),新病例的优势比为18.6 (95% CI 12.4-27.9)。在特定全基因组变异中观察到效应大小的差异,但与CeD没有显著相关。经过验证的PRS显示,CeD病例与一般人群之间存在显著的遗传差异,在已知病例和新诊断病例中也存在类似的关联。这表明两组的遗传结构具有可比性,这意味着其他非遗传因素可能驱动成人的CeD。
Genetic differences between diagnosed and undiagnosed Celiac disease: a population-based study.
A large proportion of individuals with celiac disease (CeD) remain undiagnosed, often presenting at an older age of onset or with non-classical symptoms compared to diagnosed cases. Such heterogeneity might be related to genetic factors. The aim was to utilize a CeD-screened adult population to compare the genetic variants in known and newly diagnosed cases. In the fourth wave of the population-based Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4) 826 CeD and 51,516 non-CeD individuals were included. Medical registries identified 361 previously diagnosed cases, while screening identified 465 new cases. A validated polygenic risk score (PRS) was used to assess the genetic risk of CeD among the two case groups versus non-CeD individuals. Additional genetic variants not included in the PRS were also analyzed. The PRS distinguished cases from non-cases with high accuracy (AUROC: 85% for known cases, 83% for new cases). The genetic variation explained by the PRS was similar for known and new cases (17.1% versus 14.5%). The odds ratio for being in the highest genetic risk group (top 10%) was 22.7 (95% CI 14.1-36.4) for known cases and 18.6 (95% CI 12.4-27.9) for new cases versus the median group (40%-60%). Differences in effect size among specific genome-wide variants were observed but were not significantly associated with CeD. A validated PRS showed significant genetic difference between CeD cases and the general population, with similar association in both known and newly diagnosed cases. This suggests that genetic architectures of the two groups are comparable, implying that other non-genetic factors may drive CeD in adults.
期刊介绍:
Human Genetics is a monthly journal publishing original and timely articles on all aspects of human genetics. The Journal particularly welcomes articles in the areas of Behavioral genetics, Bioinformatics, Cancer genetics and genomics, Cytogenetics, Developmental genetics, Disease association studies, Dysmorphology, ELSI (ethical, legal and social issues), Evolutionary genetics, Gene expression, Gene structure and organization, Genetics of complex diseases and epistatic interactions, Genetic epidemiology, Genome biology, Genome structure and organization, Genotype-phenotype relationships, Human Genomics, Immunogenetics and genomics, Linkage analysis and genetic mapping, Methods in Statistical Genetics, Molecular diagnostics, Mutation detection and analysis, Neurogenetics, Physical mapping and Population Genetics. Articles reporting animal models relevant to human biology or disease are also welcome. Preference will be given to those articles which address clinically relevant questions or which provide new insights into human biology.
Unless reporting entirely novel and unusual aspects of a topic, clinical case reports, cytogenetic case reports, papers on descriptive population genetics, articles dealing with the frequency of polymorphisms or additional mutations within genes in which numerous lesions have already been described, and papers that report meta-analyses of previously published datasets will normally not be accepted.
The Journal typically will not consider for publication manuscripts that report merely the isolation, map position, structure, and tissue expression profile of a gene of unknown function unless the gene is of particular interest or is a candidate gene involved in a human trait or disorder.