SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

No causal relationship between serum urate and neurodegenerative diseases: A Mendelian randomization study.

Exp Gerontol · 2024-07-01

DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2024.112503PMID: 38955238

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveObservational studies have shown that increased serum urate is associated with a lower risk of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), but the causality remains unclear. We employed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to assess the causal relationship between serum urate and four common subtypes of NDs, including Parkinson's disease (PD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and multiple sclerosis (MS).MethodsSerum urate data came from the CKDGen Consortium. GWAS data for PD, AD, ALS, and MS were obtained from four databases in the primary analysis and then acquired statistics from the FinnGen consortium for replication and meta-analysis. Inverse variance weighted (IVW), weighted median (WM), and MR-Egger regression methods were applied in the MR analyses. Pleiotropic effects, heterogeneity, and leave-one-out analyses were evaluated to validate the results.ResultsThere was no evidence for the effect of serum urate on PD (OR: 1.00, 95 % CI: 0.90-1.11, P = 0.97), AD (OR: 1.02, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.04, P = 0.06), ALS (OR: 1.05, 95 % CI: 0.97-1.13, P = 0.22), and MS (OR: 1.01, 95 % CI: 0.89-1.14, P = 0.90) risk when combined with the FinnGen consortium, neither was any evidence of pleiotropy detected between the instrumental variables (IVs).ConclusionThe MR analysis suggested that serum urate may not be causally associated with a risk of PD, AD, ALS, and MS.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.