ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Association between cathepsins and benign prostate diseases: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Trends in Mendelian randomization in neurological disease research: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Cathepsins in prostate cancer: multifunctional regulators in tumor progression and therapeutic prospects-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The relationship between cathepsins and prostate cancer (PCa) has been reported. However, there is a lack of research on cathepsins and benign prostate diseases (BPDs). This study investigated the potential genetic link between cathepsins and BPDs through the utilization of Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to determine if a causal relationship exists. Methods: Publicly accessible summary statistics on BPDs were obtained from FinnGen Biobank. The data comprised 149,363 individuals, with 30,066 cases and 119,297 controls for BPH, and 123,057 individuals, with 3,760 cases and 119,297 controls for prostatitis. The IEU OpenGWAS provided the Genome-wide association data on ten cathepsins. To evaluate the causal relationship between BPDs and cathepsins, five distinct MR analyses were employed, with the primary method being the inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the horizontal pleiotropy and heterogeneity of the findings. Results: The examination of IVW MR findings showed that cathepsin O had a beneficial effect on BPH (IVW OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, P=0.0055), while cathepsin X posed a threat to prostatitis (IVW OR=1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16, P=0.047). Through reverse MR analysis, it was revealed that prostatitis had an adverse impact on cathepsin V (IVW OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P=0.035), while no favorable association was observed between BPH and cathepsins. The results obtained from MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode methods were consistent with the findings of the IVW approach. Based on sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity, and horizontal pleiotropy are unlikely to distort the results. Conclusion: This study offers the initial evidence of a genetic causal link between cathepsins and BPDs. Our findings revealed that cathepsin O was beneficial in preventing BPH, whereas cathepsin X posed a potential threat to prostatitis. Additionally, prostatitis negatively affected cathepsin V level. These three cathepsins could be targets of diagnosis and treatment for BPDs, which need further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.