Differential DNA methylation in familial hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a monogenic disorder characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). A FH causing genetic variant in LDLR, APOB, or PCSK9 is not identified in 12-60% of clinical FH patients (FH mutation-negative patients). We aimed to assess whether altered DNA methylation might be associated with FH in this latter group. METHODS: In this study we included 78 FH mutation-negative patients and 58 FH mutation-positive patients with a pathogenic LDLR variant. All patients were male, not using lipid lowering therapies and had LDL-C levels >6 mmol/L and triglyceride levels <3.5 mmol/L. DNA methylation was measured with the Infinium Methylation EPIC 850 K beadchip assay. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore DNA methylation differences between the two groups in genes related to lipid metabolism. A gradient boosting machine learning model was applied to investigate accumulated genome-wide differences between the two groups. FINDINGS: Candidate gene analysis revealed one significantly hypomethylated CpG site in CPT1A (cg00574958) in FH mutation-negative patients, while no differences in methylation in other lipid genes were observed. The machine learning model did distinguish the two groups with a mean Area Under the Curve (AUC)±SD of 0.80±0.17 and provided two CpG sites (cg26426080 and cg11478607) in genes with a possible link to lipid metabolism (PRDM16 and GSTT1). INTERPRETATION: FH mutation-negative patients are characterized by accumulated genome wide DNA methylation differences, but not by major DNA methylation alterations in known lipid genes compared to FH mutation-positive patients. FUNDING: ZonMW grant (VIDI no. 016.156.445).

Improved cardiovascular risk prediction using targeted plasma proteomics in primary prevention.

AIMS: In the era of personalized medicine, it is of utmost importance to be able to identify subjects at the highest cardiovascular (CV) risk. To date, single biomarkers have failed to markedly improve the estimation of CV risk. Using novel technology, simultaneous assessment of large numbers of biomarkers may hold promise to improve prediction. In the present study, we compared a protein-based risk model with a model using traditional risk factors in predicting CV events in the primary prevention setting of the European Prospective Investigation (EPIC)-Norfolk study, followed by validation in the Progressione della Lesione Intimale Carotidea (PLIC) cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the proximity extension assay, 368 proteins were measured in a nested case-control sample of 822 individuals from the EPIC-Norfolk prospective cohort study and 702 individuals from the PLIC cohort. Using tree-based ensemble and boosting methods, we constructed a protein-based prediction model, an optimized clinical risk model, and a model combining both. In the derivation cohort (EPIC-Norfolk), we defined a panel of 50 proteins, which outperformed the clinical risk model in the prediction of myocardial infarction [area under the curve (AUC) 0.754 vs. 0.730; P < 0.001] during a median follow-up of 20 years. The clinically more relevant prediction of events occurring within 3 years showed an AUC of 0.732 using the clinical risk model and an AUC of 0.803 for the protein model (P < 0.001). The predictive value of the protein panel was confirmed to be superior to the clinical risk model in the validation cohort (AUC 0.705 vs. 0.609; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a primary prevention setting, a proteome-based model outperforms a model comprising clinical risk factors in predicting the risk of CV events. Validation in a large prospective primary prevention cohort is required to address the value for future clinical implementation in CV prevention.