Multi-trait polygenic scores for COPD and COPD exacerbations implicate druggable proteins

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUNDWe constructed multi-trait polygenic risk scores (PRSs) predicting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and exacerbations, validated their performance in diverse cohorts, and identified PRS-related proteins for potential therapeutic targeting.METHODSPRSmix+, a multi-trait PRS framework, is used to train a composite PRS (PRSmulti) in COPDGene non-Hispanic White participants (n = 6,647). Associations of PRSmulti with COPD status (GOLD 2-4 vs. GOLD 0 or ICD) and exacerbation frequency were tested in COPDGene African American (n = 2,466), ECLIPSE (n = 1,858), Mass General Brigham Biobank (n = 15,152), and All of Us (n = 118,566). Protein prediction models were applied to GWAS summary statistics from traits contributing to PRSmulti and were validated with proteomic data in COPDGene (n = 5,173) and UK Biobank (n = 5,012).RESULTSPRSmix+ selected 7 traits for PRSmulti. In multivariable models, PRSmulti was associated with COPD status (meta-analysis random effects [RE] OR 1.58 [95% CI: 1.28-1.94]) and exacerbation frequency (meta-analysis RE β 0.21 [95% CI: 0.11-0.31]), with higher effect sizes observed in smoking-enriched cohorts. PRSmulti outperformed traditional single-trait PRS in all tested cohorts. Using protein prediction models, we identified 73 proteins associated with the PRSs that were also validated with measured protein levels in COPDGene and UK Biobank. Of these proteins, 25 were linked to approved or investigational drugs. Notable targets include RAGE/sRAGE, IL1RL1, and SCARF2, all implicated in COPD pathogenesis and exacerbations.CONCLUSIONSMulti-trait PRS improves prediction of COPD and exacerbation risk. Integration with proteomic data identifies druggable protein targets, offering a promising avenue for precision medicine in COPD management.TRIAL REGISTRATIONCOPDGene: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00608764; ECLIPSE: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00292552.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.