ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring lipidome mediated inflammatory pathways in acute pancreatitis using mendelian randomization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A lipid-immune network signature defines susceptibility to asparaginase-associated pancreatitis.JCI insight · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a severe gastrointestinal condition with an increasing incidence of hyperlipidemic etiology. The investigation employed a two-sample, bidirectional Mendelian randomization method to investigate potential causal relationship between lipidome profiles, inflammatory mediators, and AP. Exploration of genetic variants across the genome in a study population of 10,630 AP cases and 844,679 non-AP individuals revealed multiple lipidome entities significantly associated with AP risk. The study identified 23 lipid species with unidirectional causal effects on AP after accounting for heterogeneity, pleiotropy, and potential reverse causation. Additionally, five inflammatory factors (CD5, IL-13, MMP-1, STAMBP, TNFRSF9) showed significant potential causal relationship with AP. Further analysis elucidated the intricate interplay between specific lipid species and inflammatory mediators in influencing AP incidence. Notably, Sterol ester (27:1/20:4) and several phosphatidylcholine species, including PC (17:0_20:4), PC (18:0_20:4), PC (18:0_20:5), and PC (O-18:2_20:4), were negatively associated with AP risk. This protective effect was partially mediated through decreased levels of inflammatory markers, particularly STAMBP and MMP-1. The study found that these phosphatidylcholines and sterol esters significantly reduced the levels of these pro-inflammatory factors, thereby potentially mitigating AP risk. Conversely, Phosphatidylinositol (16:0_18:1) demonstrated a positive association with AP risk. This detrimental effect was partially mediated by increased levels of MMP-1 and STAMBP, suggesting a pro-inflammatory mechanism. The study provides evidence that this specific phosphatidylinositol species may exacerbate AP risk by promoting inflammatory pathways. These findings elucidate the complex interplay between lipid metabolites, inflammation, and AP pathogenesis, potentially informing novel therapeutic strategies. The study highlights the utility of Mendelian randomization in uncovering potential causal relationship in AP. It underscores the requirement for further study into the molecular mechanisms underlying lipid-mediated inflammation in AP, particularly the roles of phosphatidylcholines and sterol esters in modulating inflammatory responses. Further studies are warranted to confirm our observations in laboratory models and assess their translational value in developing AP preventive and therapeutic strategies.
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.