Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of urinary metabolite GWAS studies identifies novel genome-wide significant loci

Zaki JK, Tomasik J, McCune JA, Scherman OA, Bahn S

Scientific reports, 2025

5,319 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have substantially enhanced the understanding of genetic influences on phenotypic outcomes; however, realizing their full potential requires an aggregate analysis of numerous studies. Here we represent the first comprehensive meta-analysis of urinary metabolite GWAS studies, aiming to consolidate existing data on metabolite-SNP associations, evaluate consistency across studies, and unravel novel genetic links. Following an extensive literature review and data collection through the EMBL-EBI GWAS Catalog, PubMed, and metabolomix.com, we employed a sample size-based meta-analytic approach to evaluate the significance of previously reported GWAS associations. Our analysis identified 48 independent lead SNPs correlated with the levels of 14 unique urinary metabolites: alanine, 3-aminoisobutyrate, betaine, creatine, creatinine, formate, glycine, glycolate, histidine, 2-hydroxybutyrate, lysine, threonine, trimethylamine, and tyrosine. Notably, the results revealed a novel locus for tyrosine (rs4594899, SLC12A7, P = 6.6 × 10-9, N = 2623), and three newly associated independent SNPs within known loci: one for glycine (rs1755615, GLDC, P = 2.4 × 10-10, N = 5319), and two for 3-aminoisobutyrate (rs79053399, RAI14, P = 6.9 × 10-10, N = 4656; rs36071744, TTC23L, P = 2.97 × 10-10, N = 4872). These findings underscore the potential of urinary metabolite GWAS meta-analyses in revealing novel genetic factors that may aid in the understanding of disease…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,319 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free