Genetics of common cerebral small vessel disease
Constance Bordes, Muralidharan Sargurupremraj, Aniket Mishra, Stéphanie Debette. Nature reviews. Neurology, 2022-01-05
Topic: Genetics and APOE
Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a leading cause of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke and a major contributor to dementia. Covert cSVD, which is detectable with brain MRI but does not manifest as clinical stroke, is highly prevalent in the general population, particularly with increasing age. Advances in technologies and collaborative work have led to substantial progress in the identification of common genetic variants that are associated with cSVD-related stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and MRI-defined covert cSVD. In this Review, we provide an overview of collaborative studies - mostly genome-wide association studies (GWAS) - that have identified >50 independent genetic loci associated with the risk of cSVD. We describe how these associations have provided novel insights into the biological mechanisms involved in cSVD, revealed patterns of shared genetic variation across cSVD traits, and shed new light on the continuum between rare, monogenic and common, multifactorial cSVD. We consider how GWAS summary statistics have been leveraged for Mendelian randomization studies to explore causal pathways in cSVD and provide genetic evidence for drug effects, and how the combination of findings from GWAS with gene expression resources and drug target databases has enabled identification of putative causal genes and provided proof-of-concept for drug repositioning potential. We also discuss opportunities for polygenic risk prediction, multi-ancestry approaches and integration with other omics data.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bordes, C., Sargurupremraj, M., Mishra, A., & Debette, S. (2022). Genetics of common cerebral small vessel disease. Nature reviews. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00592-8
Vancouver
Bordes C, Sargurupremraj M, Mishra A, Debette S. Genetics of common cerebral small vessel disease. Nature reviews. Neurology. 2022. doi:10.1038/s41582-021-00592-8. PMID: 34987231.
BibTeX
@article{bordes2022-34987231,
author = {Bordes, Constance and Sargurupremraj, Muralidharan and Mishra, Aniket and Debette, Stéphanie},
title = {{Genetics of common cerebral small vessel disease}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Neurology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1038/s41582-021-00592-8},
pmid = {34987231},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00592-8}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Advances in technologies and collaborative work have led to substantial progress in the identification of common genetic variants that are associated with cSVD-related stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and MRI-defined covert cSVD.
- In this Review, we provide an overview of collaborative studies - mostly genome-wide association studies (GWAS) - that have identified >50 independent genetic loci associated with the risk of cSVD.
- We describe how these associations have provided novel insights into the biological mechanisms involved in cSVD, revealed patterns of shared genetic variation across cSVD traits, and shed new light on the continuum between rare, monogenic and common, multifactorial cSVD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nature reviews. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34987231) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Genetics
Also tagged “genetics”
346 studies in the library carry the topic tag “genetics”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 346 tagged studies.