Circulating lipoprotein lipids cause coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the precise way in which one or more lipoprotein lipid-related entities account for this relationship remains unclear. Using genetic instruments for lipoprotein lipid traits implemented through multivariable Mendelian randomisation (MR), we sought to compare their causal roles in the aetiology of CHD. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of circulating non-fasted lipoprotein lipid traits in the UK Biobank (UKBB) for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B to identify lipid-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Using data from CARDIoGRAMplusC4D for CHD (consisting of 60,801 cases and 123,504 controls), we performed univariable and multivariable MR analyses. Similar GWAS and MR analyses were conducted for high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I. The GWAS of lipids and apolipoproteins in the UKBB included between 393,193 and 441,016 individuals in whom the mean age was 56.9 y (range 39–73 y) and of whom 54.2% were women. The mean (standard deviation) lipid concentrations were LDL cholesterol 3.57 (0.87) mmol/L and HDL cholesterol 1.45 (0.38) mmol/L, and the median triglycerides was 1.50 (IQR = 1.11) mmol/L. The mean (standard deviation) values for apolipoproteins B and A-I were 1.03 (0.24) g/L and 1.54 (0.27) g/L, respectively. The GWAS identified multiple independent SNPs associated at P < 5 × 10⁻⁸ for LDL cholesterol (220), apolipoprotein B (n = 255), triglycerides (440), HDL cholesterol (534), and apolipoprotein A-I (440). Between 56%–93% of SNPs identified for each lipid trait had not been previously reported in large-scale GWASs. Almost half (46%) of these SNPs were associated at P < 5 × 10⁻⁸ with more than one lipid-related trait. Assessed individually using MR, LDL cholesterol (odds ratio [OR] 1.66 per 1-standard-deviation–higher trait; 95% CI: 1.49–1.86; P < 0.001), triglycerides (OR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.25–1.44; P < 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (OR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.56–1.91; P < 0.001) had effect estimates consistent with a higher risk of CHD. In multivariable MR, only apolipoprotein B (OR 1.92; 95% CI: 1.31–2.81; P < 0.001) retained a robust effect, with the estimate for LDL cholesterol (OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.57–1.27; P = 0.44) reversing and that of triglycerides (OR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02–1.23; P = 0.01) becoming weaker. Individual MR analyses showed a 1-standard-deviation–higher HDL cholesterol (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.75–0.86; P < 0.001) and apolipoprotein A-I (OR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77–0.89; P < 0.001) to lower the risk of CHD, but these effect estimates attenuated substantially to the null on accounting for apolipoprotein B. A limitation is that, owing to the nature of lipoprotein metabolism, measures related to the composition of lipoprotein particles are highly correlated, creating a challenge in making exclusive interpretations on causation of individual components. These findings suggest that apolipoprotein B is the predominant trait that accounts for the aetiological relationship of lipoprotein lipids with risk of CHD.

Large-scale molecular profiling and genotyping provide a unique opportunity to systematically compare the genetically predicted effects of therapeutic targets on the human metabolome. We firstly constructed genetic risk scores for 8 drug targets on the basis that they primarily modify low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (HMGCR, PCKS9, and NPC1L1), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (CETP), or triglycerides (APOC3, ANGPTL3, ANGPTL4, and LPL). Conducting mendelian randomisation (MR) provided strong evidence of an effect of drug-based genetic scores on coronary artery disease (CAD) risk with the exception of ANGPTL3. We then systematically estimated the effects of each score on 249 metabolic traits derived using blood samples from an unprecedented sample size of up to 115,082 UK Biobank participants. Genetically predicted effects were generally consistent among drug targets, which were intended to modify the same lipoprotein lipid trait. For example, the linear fit for the MR estimates on all 249 metabolic traits for genetically predicted inhibition of LDL cholesterol lowering targets HMGCR and PCSK9 was r² = 0.91. In contrast, comparisons between drug classes that were designed to modify discrete lipoprotein traits typically had very different effects on metabolic signatures (for instance, HMGCR versus each of the 4 triglyceride targets all had r² < 0.02). Furthermore, we highlight this discrepancy for specific metabolic traits, for example, finding that LDL cholesterol lowering therapies typically had a weak effect on glycoprotein acetyls, a marker of inflammation, whereas triglyceride modifying therapies assessed provided evidence of a strong effect on lowering levels of this inflammatory biomarker. Our findings indicate that genetically predicted perturbations of these drug targets on the blood metabolome can drastically differ, despite largely consistent effects on risk of CAD, with potential implications for biomarkers in clinical development and measuring treatment response.

Objective To evaluate whether body size in early life has an independent effect on risk of disease in later life or whether its influence is mediated by body size in adulthood. Design Two sample univariable and multivariable mendelian randomisation. Setting The UK Biobank prospective cohort study and four large scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) consortiums. Participants 453 169 participants enrolled in UK Biobank and a combined total of more than 700 000 people from different GWAS consortiums. Exposures Measured body mass index during adulthood (mean age 56.5) and self-reported perceived body size at age 10. Main outcome measures Coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. Results Having a larger genetically predicted body size in early life was associated with an increased odds of coronary artery disease (odds ratio 1.49 for each change in body size category unless stated otherwise, 95% confidence interval 1.33 to 1.68) and type 2 diabetes (2.32, 1.76 to 3.05) based on univariable mendelian randomisation analyses. However, little evidence was found of a direct effect (ie, not through adult body size) based on multivariable mendelian randomisation estimates (coronary artery disease: 1.02, 0.86 to 1.22; type 2 diabetes:1.16, 0.74 to 1.82). In the multivariable mendelian randomisation analysis of breast cancer risk, strong evidence was found of a protective direct effect for larger body size in early life (0.59, 0.50 to 0.71), with less evidence of a direct effect of adult body size on this outcome (1.08, 0.93 to 1.27). Including age at menarche as an additional exposure provided weak evidence of a total causal effect (univariable mendelian randomisation odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.06) but strong evidence of a direct causal effect, independent of early life and adult body size (multivariable mendelian randomisation odds ratio 0.90, 0.85 to 0.95). No strong evidence was found of a causal effect of either early or later life measures on prostate cancer (early life body size odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.40; adult body size 0.87, 0.70 to 1.08). Conclusions The findings suggest that the positive association between body size in childhood and risk of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes in adulthood can be attributed to individuals remaining large into later life. However, having a smaller body size during childhood might increase the risk of breast cancer regardless of body size in adulthood, with timing of puberty also putatively playing a role.