RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Do mass-spectrometry-derived metabolomics improve prediction of pregnancy-related disorders? Findings from a UK birth cohort with independent validation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.05.04.21256218
DO 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256218
A1 McBride, Nancy
A1 Yousefi, Paul
A1 Sovio, Ulla
A1 Taylor, Kurt
A1 Vafai, Yassaman
A1 Yang, Tiffany
A1 Hou, Bo
A1 Suderman, Matthew
A1 Relton, Caroline
A1 Smith, Gordon C.
A1 Lawlor, Deborah A.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/04/2021.05.04.21256218.abstract
AB Maternal risk factors, such as body mass index (BMI), age, smoking, parity and ethnicity, are associated with risk of pregnancy-related disorders. However, many women who experience gestational diabetes (GDM), gestational hypertension (GHT), pre-eclampsia (PE), have a spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) or an offspring born small/large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), do not display any of these risk factors. Tools that better predict these outcomes are needed to tailor antenatal care to risk. Recent studies have suggested that metabolomics may improve the prediction of these pregnancy-related disorders. These have largely been based on targeted platforms or focused on a single pregnancy outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of an untargeted platform of over 700 metabolites to predict the above pregnancy-related disorders in two cohorts.We used data collected from women in the Born in Bradford study (BiB; two sub-samples, n=2,000 and n=1,000) and the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction study (POPs; n=827) to train, test and validate prediction models for GDM, PE, GHT, SGA, LGA and sPTB. We used ten-fold cross-validation and penalised regression to create prediction models. We compared the predictive performance of 3 models: 1) risk factors (maternal age, pregnancy smoking, BMI, ethnicity, and parity) 2) mass spectrometry (MS)-derived metabolites (N = 718 quantified metabolites, collected at 26-28 weeks’ gestation) and 3) combined risk factors and metabolites. We used BiB for training and testing the models and POPs for independent validation.In both cohorts, discrimination for GDM, PE, LGA and SGA improved with the addition of metabolites to the risk factor model (combined risk factor and metabolite model). The combined models’ area under the curve (AUC) were similar for both cohorts, with good discrimination for GDM (AUC (95% CI) BiB 0.76 (0.71,0.81) and POPs 0.76 (0.72,0.81)) and LGA (BiB 0.86 (0.80,0.91) and POPs 0.76 (0.60,0.92)). Discrimination was improved for the combined models (compared to the risk factors models) for PE and SGA, with modest discrimination in both studies (PE - BiB 0.68 (0.58,0.78) and POPs 0.66 (0.60,0.71); SGA - BiB 0.68 (0.63,0.74) and POPs 0.64 (0.59,0.69)). Prediction for sPTB was poor in BiB and POPs for all models, with AUC ∼0.5. In BiB, calibration for the combined models was good for GDM, LGA and SGA. Retained predictors include 4-hydroxyglutamate for GDM, LGA and PE, and glycerol for GDM and PE.MS-derived metabolomics combined with maternal risk factors improve prediction of GDM, PE, LGA and SGA, with good discrimination for GDM and LGA. Validation across two very different cohorts supports further investigation on whether the metabolites reflect novel causal paths to GDM and LGA. Developing these prediction tools could enable tailoring antenatal care to improve earlier and more accurate identification of high-risk women.Competing Interest StatementD.A.L has received support from Medtronic Ltd. and Roche Diagnostics for biomarker research unrelated to those presented in this paper. Cambridge Enterprise (UK) have filed a patent relating to the metabolite ratio described in Reference 27 of the present paper with U.S. and G.C.S. as two of the three named inventors. G.C.S. (in the last 3 years) has received research support from Roche Diagnostics Ltd, GSK, Illumina and Sera Prognostics, has been paid to speak at a meeting by Roche Diagnostics Ltd, and is a member of a GSK DMC (all outside the current work).Funding StatementThe work was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, which funds N.M.s PhD studentship, US National Institute of Health (R01 DK10324), the European Research Council under the European Unions Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no 669545. Core funding for Born in Bradford (BiB) has been funded by the Wellcome Trust (WT101597MA) a joint grant from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and UK Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC) (MR/N024397/1), the British Heart Foundation (CS/16/4/32482) and the NIHR under its Collaboration for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Yorkshire and Humber and the Clinical Research Network (CRN). This study received funding from the National Institute of Health Research (RP-PG-0407-10452), Medical Research Council UK (MR/L002477/1). The work of U.S. was funded by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Womens Health theme). K.T is supported by a British Heart Foundation Doctoral Training Program (FS/17/60/33474). CR is supported by the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/5/MRC). The funders did not have any role in the design, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript for publication. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or any of the funders listed above.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Bradford National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (ref 06/Q1202/48) and the Cambridgeshire Research Ethics Committee (reference number 07/H0308/163). All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available upon request from https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/research/how-to-access-data/. The POPs study data are available from G.C.S.S. (gcss2{at}cam.ac.uk) upon reasonable request. Data requests will require a formal Data Transfer Agreement. Data are not publicly available due to the terms of the ethical approval.GDMgestational diabetesPEpre-eclampsiaGHTgestational hypertensionLGAlarge for gestational agesPTBspontaneous preterm birthBMIbody mass indexBiBBorn in BradfordPOPsPregnancy Outcome Prediction studyAUCArea under the curveMSmass spectrometry