Skip to main content
Download PDF

Causality between serum uric acid and diabetic microvascular complications - a mendelian randomization study

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 16, Article number: 134 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a causal relationship exists between serum uric acid (SUA) and diabetic microvascular complications using a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) method.

Methods

We used the MR approach, utilizing genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics, to estimate the causal effect of SUA on diabetic microvascular complications in European individuals. The summary statistical data of SUA were obtained from the open database (IEU OPEN GWAS PROJECT) (p < 5 × 10− 8), and data on diabetic microvascular complications (diabetic nephropathy, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy) were obtained from the FinnGen consortium. F-statistics were calculated to assess the correlation between instrumental variables (IVs) and SUA, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with confounders or outcomes were excluded by consulting the PhenoScanner database. Inverse variance weighting (IVW) was used for primary estimation, and MR‒Egger, weighted median (WM), and Mendelian randomization pleiotropy residuals sum and outliers (MR-PRESSO) were used for additional assessment. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran’s Q test, and polytropy was assessed using the MR‒Egger intercept.

Results

MR analysis revealed a causal relationship between a genetically predicted increase in SUA and diabetic nephropathy [OR = 1.32, 95%(CI) = 1.07–1.63, p = 0.008]. The results were consistent with those after MR-PRESSO [OR = 1.30, 95%(CI) = 1.07–1.58, p = 0.008]. There was a causal relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal complication IVW [OR = 1.27, 95%(CI) = 1.00–1.62, p = 0.049]. These results were consistent with those after MR-PRESSO [OR = 1.27, 95%(CI) = 1.00–1.62, p = 0.050]. There was no significant causal relationship between the genetically predicted increase in SUA and diabetic retinopathy [OR 1.09, 95%(CI) = 0.94–1.26, p = 0.249] or diabetic neuropathy [OR = 1.08, 95%(CI) = 0.84–1.40, p = 0.549].

Conclusions

This MR analysis suggests a causal relationship between genetically predicted uric acid increases and diabetic microvascular complications. A significant causal relationship exists between SUA and diabetic nephropathy but not between SUA and diabetic retinopathy or diabetic neuropathy.

Background

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has become one of the most widespread chronic diseases worldwide, and its morbidity continues to increase. According to International Diabetes Federation (IDF) statistics, the number of people with diabetes worldwide is expected to increase to 783.2 million in 2045 [1]. As a result of hyperglycemia and insulin resistance syndrome, the risk of macrovascular complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease) as well as microvascular complications (including diabetic nephropathy, diabetic neuropathy, and diabetic retinopathy) is significantly increased among diabetic patients. DM places a heavy financial burden on patients, their families and society, and 4.2 million adults died from DM and its complications in 2019.

Serum uric acid (SUA) is the end product of cellular purine metabolism [2] and one of the major antioxidants in plasma. SUA is capable of exerting physiological protection from antioxidants by scavenging singlet oxygen and preventing lipid peroxidation at physiological levels. Therefore, maintaining SUA within the normal range is important for regulating tissue and cellular function [3]. Many previous studies have confirmed the interaction of hyperuricemia with hypertension, DM, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery atherosclerosis, and other diseases [4]. However, some recent studies have suggested that SUA may promote the occurrence and progression of chronic diseases when it is outside the normal range. There is an association between SUA and the occurrence of diabetic microvascular complications [5, 6], but there is no uniform conclusion. Identification of this association may improve clinical monitoring and early diagnosis and prevention of diabetic microvascular complications.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method of causal inference based on genetic variation with the principle of random assignment of genotypes in nature and by examining the effect of genotypes on phenotypes, which makes it possible to infer the effect of biological factors on disease [7]. Specifically, MR determines mutations based on genes associated with exposure, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are used as instrumental variables (IVs) to investigate the causal relationship between exposure factors and outcome variables. The aim of this study was to investigate the causal relationship between SUA and diabetic microvascular complications, which will help clarify the role of SUA in the occurrence and progression of diabetic microvascular complications.

Materials and methods

Study design

To investigate the causal relationship between SUA and diabetic microvascular complications, a two-sample MR analysis was designed and is shown in Fig. 1. The MR study was based on the following three hypotheses [8]: (i) the genetic variants selected as IVs are associated with SUA; (ii) the genetic variants are not associated with confounders associated with the exposure factor (uric acid) and affect the outcome factor (diabetic microvascular complications) [e.g., body mass index (BMI), blood lipids, fasting blood glucose (FBG), homocysteine, smoking, and hypertension)]; and (iii) the genetic variants influence the outcome only through the exposure factor and not through other pathways. MR findings were considered robust only if the above 3 core hypotheses were met. This study utilized recent GWAS summary statistics of SUA and diabetic microvascular complications. This article was prepared following the reporting of observational studies in the Epidemiology–Mendelian Randomization (STROBE-MR) checklist [9].

Fig. 1
figure 1

The design of two-sample Mendelian randomization. SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism; IV: instrumental variable. Solid paths indicate that IVs are associated with exposure factors, which satisfy the assumption of association; dashed paths and “x” indicate that genetic variants are not associated with confounders or cannot directly influence the outcome except through exposure pathways, satisfying the assumptions of independence and exclusivity

Full size image

Data sources and SNP selection

Genetic data for the exposure factor and outcome factor were obtained from public GWAS summary statistics that support statistical data downloads and systematic causal inference studies. The summary statistical data of SUA were obtained from the IEU OPEN GWAS PROJECT involving 19,041,286 SNPs from 343,836 participants of European ancestry (these data can be downloaded from https://gwasmrcieu.ac.uk/datasets, ID: ebi-a-GCST90018977). We selected GWAS summary statistics of diabetic nephropathy, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic neuropathy from the FinnGen consortium (https://r9.finngen.fi/) [10]. The study for these patients, whose participants were all of European descent, was initiated in Finland in 2017, and cases were identified based on International Classification of Diseases codes. The details of the instrument SNPs are listed in Supplementary Table S1.

The selection of IVs met the following requirements: (i) SNPs significantly associated with SUA were extracted from the GWAS summary statistics (p < 5 × 10− 8); (ii) to avoid bias generated by linkage disequilibrium (LD), we selected SNPs that were independent of each other as IVs; parameter conditions r2 = 0.001, kb = 10 000, and minor allele frequency (MAF) > 0.01 were set in R software; and (iii) we calculated F-statistics to test for weak IV bias and selected strong IVs for MR analyses where SNPs with F > 10 were defined as strong IVs and SNPs with F < 10 were defined as weak IVs. We calculated the F statistic using the formula F= (βexposure/SEexposure)2 (β is the effect value of the allele; SE indicates the variance of each SNP) [11]. (iv) We searched the phenoscanner database for all SNPs associated with exposure (http://www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk/) and removed SNPs associated with confounders or outcomes (P < 1 × 10− 5) to avoid potential pleiotropic effects. We used the screened SNPs as IVs in this study, and the rectangular chart of the selected IVs a shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Rectangular chart of the selected instrumental variables (IVs). SNPs: single-nucleotide polymorphisms; Gwas: Genome-wide association study; LD: linkage disequilibrium; MAF: minor allele frequency; IVM: inverse variance weighted; WM: weighted median

Full size image

MR analysis

The main analyses were performed using the multiplicative random effects inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method, which combines cumulative causal estimates of Wald ratios derived from each IV [8]. MR‒Egger, WM, and MR-PRESSO were used for supplementary analyses to ensure the validity and robustness of the results [12]. The results of the MR analyses are presented as odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered the causal effect of exposure on outcome to be significant if the p value was < 0.05.

In this study, we used the horizontal pleiotropy test, heterogeneity test, and “leave-one-out” method for sensitivity analysis to ensure the reliability of the results. The MR‒Egger regression method was utilized to test the horizontal pleiotropy of selected SNPs. Its intercept test value indicates the magnitude of pleiotropy, and the closer it is to 0, the less likely it is that the gene has pleiotropy [13]. According to the results of the heterogeneity test, if the Q-statistic was greater than 0.05, it indicated no heterogeneity in the selected IVs, and the effect of heterogeneity on the causal effect could be ignored. If there was heterogeneity in the IVs, the random effects IVW method was used to estimate the causality. Otherwise, a fixed effects model was used for analysis. MR-PRESSO tests were performed to detect potential outliers and obtain corrected estimates. In addition, the “leave-one-out” method ensures the reliability of the results by assessing the influence of individual SNPs on the causal effect of exposure on outcome. The magnitude of the change in the effect size of the remaining SNPs was calculated by removing each SNP. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.0.2) with the “TwoSampleMR” (version 0.5.7) and “MR-PRESSO” (version 1.0) software packages.

Results

Genetic instrument selection and genetic correlation between phenotypes

F-statistics of all the IVs of SUA were above the threshold of 10, indicating that the IVs were strong instruments and thus reducing the bias of the IV estimates (Supplementary Table S2). Then, SNPs with incompatible alleles (e.g., rs2749005 and rs34555420) and palindromic SNPs whose orientation could not be determined (e.g., rs12510175, rs1851285, rs1869581, rs2252862, rs2493121, rs538737, and rs7039) were eliminated by data harmonization. Furthermore, 21 SNPs associated with the outcome variable, i.e., diabetic microvascular complications (e.g., BMI, blood lipids, FBG, homocysteine, smoking status, and hypertension status), were identified and excluded by screening in the PhenoScanner database (Supplementary Table S3). Finally, the screened SNPs were used as IVs of the SUA.

Causal effect of SUA on diabetic nephropathy

There was a causal relationship between genetically elevated SUA and diabetic nephropathy [OR = 1.32, 95%(CI) = 1.07–1.63, p = 0.008] according to the IVW model. The corrected MR-PRESSO model results [OR = 1.30, 95%(CI) = 1.07–1.58, p = 0.008] were consistent with the IVW results. The results of the MR‒Egger model [OR = 1.15, 95%(CI) = 0.76–1.75, p = 0.498] and WM model [OR = 1.33, 95%(CI) = 0.98–1.79, p = 0.064] were inconsistent with those of the IVW model. We also performed MR analysis on secondary outcomes of diabetic nephropathy [type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) with renal complications and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with renal complications]. There was no significant causal relationship between SUA and renal complications in any of the four models: the IVW model [OR = 1.06, 95%(CI) = 0.77–1.46, p = 0.711], the MR-PRESSO model [OR = 1.06, 95%(CI) = 0.77–1.46, p = 0.711], the MR‒Egger model [OR = 0.88, 95%(CI) = 0.46–1.69, p = 0.697], or the WM model [OR = 1.00, 95%(CI) = 0.62–1.62, p = 0.999]. However, we obtained the opposite results: the IVW model [OR = 1.27, 95%(CI) = 1.00-1.62, p = 0.049] and MR-PRESSO model [OR = 1.27, 95%(CI) = 1.00-1.62, p = 0.050] indicated a significant causal relationship between SUA and renal complications in patients with T2DM. The sensitivity analysis showed that no SNP had a significant effect on the causal relationship estimates in the “leave-one-out” analysis (Supplementary Fig. 1). The MR‒Egger intercept test in the pleiotropy analysis indicated that the IVs did not have any directional pleiotropy (Table 1). MR analysis found a significant causal relationship between SUA and both DN and T2DM with renal complications but no significant causal relationship between T1DM and renal complications (Fig. 3A).

Table 1 Pleiotropic and heterogeneous trials of causality between serum uric acid levels and the risk of diabetic microvascular complications
Full size table

Causal effect of SUA on diabetic retinopathy

No significant causal relationship existed between SUA and diabetic retinopathy according to the IVW [OR = 1.09, 95%(CI) = 0.94–1.26, p = 0.249], MR‒Egger [OR = 1.25, 95%(CI) = 0.93–1.68, p = 0.142], or WM models [OR = 1.21, 95%(CI) = 0.98–1.49, p = 0.081] of MR. The same conclusion was obtained from the corrected MR-PRESSO model [OR = 1.08, 95%(CI) = 0.84–1.40, p = 0.550]. MR analysis for secondary outcomes of diabetic retinopathy (T1DM with ophthalmic complications, T2DM with ophthalmic complications) was also performed. The results of the IVW model [OR = 1.00, 95%(CI) = 0.83–1.22, p = 0.963], MR-PRESSO model [OR = 1.00, 95%(CI) = 0.83–1.22, p = 0.963], MR‒Egger model [OR = 1.30, 95%(CI) = 0.87–1.93, p = 0.200], and WM model [OR = 1.30, 95%(CI) = 0.95–1.78, p = 0.102] showed no significant causal relationships between SUA and T1DM with ophthalmic complications. There was also no significant causal relationship between SUA and T2DM with ophthalmic complications according to the results of the four MR models, i.e., IVW [OR = 1.17, 95%(CI) = 0.96–1.42, p = 0.115], MR‒Egger [OR = 1.18, 95%(CI) = 0.81–1.74, p = 0.392], WM [OR = 1.07, 95%(CI) = 0.79–1.45, p = 0.665] and MR-PRESSO [OR = 1.13, 95%(CI) = 0.93–1.38, p = 0.218]. Similarly, the MR‒Egger intercept tests did not suggest any directional pleiotropy in IVs (Table 1). The details are listed in Supplementary Fig. 1. The results of MR analysis indicated that there was no significant causal relationship between SUA and diabetic retinopathy (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the association between SUA and diabetic microvascular complications. (A) Diabetic nephropathy, (B) diabetic retinopathy, and (C) diabetic neuropathy. The dot and bar indicate the causal estimate and 95%(CI) of the association between increasing SUA and diabetic microvascular complications, respectively

Full size image

Causal effect of SUA on diabetic neuropathy

The results of the IVW model [OR = 1.08, 95%(CI) = 0.84–1.40, p = 0.549], MR‒Egger [OR = 1.14, 95%(CI) = 0.68–1.90, p = 0.616], and WM models [OR = 0.93, 95%(CI) = 0.63–1.36, p = 0.703] showed no significant causal relationships between SUA and diabetic neuropathy. The same conclusion was obtained from the corrected MR-PRESSO model [OR = 1.08, 95%(CI) = 0.84–1.40, p = 0.550].

Moreover, we performed MR analysis on secondary outcomes of diabetic neuropathy (T1DM with neurological complications, T2DM with neurological complications) and showed that there was no significant causal relationship between SUA and either T1DM with neurological complications or T2DM with neurological complications. We used four models, namely, IVW [OR = 1.17, 95%(CI) = 0.79–1.72, p = 0.430], MR-PRESSO [OR = 1.17, 95%(CI) = 0.79–1.72, p = 0.431], MR‒Egger [OR = 1.69, 95%(CI) = 0.79–3.61, p = 0.181] and WM [OR = 1.13, 95%(CI) = 0.61–2.12, p = 0.694], to analyze the causal relationships between SUA and neither T1DM had neurological complications. Similarly, the relationships between SUA and T2DM with neurological complications were analyzed using the IVW model [OR = 0.91, 95%(CI) = 0.69–1.21, p = 0.532], MR‒Egger model [OR = 0.71, 95%(CI) = 0.40–1.26, p = 0.248], WM model [OR 0.74, 95%(CI) = 0.48–1.17, p = 0.197] and MR-PRESSO model [OR = 0.91, 95%(CI) = 0.69–1.21, p = 0.533]. Likewise, the MR‒Egger intercept tests suggested that there was no pleiotropy in the IVs (Table 1, Supplementary Fig. 1). The results of MR analysis indicated that there was no significant causal relationship between SUA and diabetic neuropathy (Fig. 3C).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the causal relationship between an increase in SUA and diabetic microvascular complications using a two-sample MR approach. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of MR methods to comprehensively explore the association between SUA and the risk of diabetic microvascular complications. Our findings suggest a causal relationship between genetically predicted increased SUA and both diabetic nephropathy and T2DM with renal complications. However, there is no significant causal relationship between genetically predicted increased SUA and increased risk of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic neuropathy.

Diabetic nephropathy is a long-term microvascular complication of DM and the major cause of end-stage renal disease. SUA is associated with the occurrence and progression of diabetic nephropathy, and it is an independent risk factor for early kidney disease. A cross-sectional study of 20,464 adults with T1DM showed that each 1 mg/dl increase in SUA was associated with a 56% increase in DKD incidence and a 30% increase in albumin excretion [14]. SUA was significantly and positively correlated with both microalbuminuria and the risk of renal disease in patients with T2DM [15]. The results of our MR study suggested a causal relationship between genetically predicted increased SUA and diabetic nephropathy or between T2DM and renal complications, which supported the conclusions reached in previous observational studies. In another Italian study involving 1,449 T2DM patients with normal renal function, the cumulative incidence of new CKD was greater in patients with hyperuricemia (29.5%) than in those without hyperuricemia (11.4%, p = 0.001) after 5 years of follow-up [16]. These studies all assessed the relationship between baseline SUA concentrations and the progression of renal impairment while reducing some of the known confounders affecting the results [17, 18]. However, the SUA concentration was not causally linked to renal complications in T1DM patients in this study. A recent FinnDiane study in which SUA was measured in 3895 patients with T1DM used an MR approach to examine the causal relationship between SUA and DN; this study used 23 SNPs with good inferential quality as IVs. The results showed no causal relationship between SUA concentration and diabetic nephropathy in patients with T1DM [19]. The finding that reducing SUA levels are associated with a decreased risk of poor renal prognosis in diabetes patients in observational studies may be because the progression of diabetic nephropathy is the result of multiple factors working together, with SUA being only a secondary factor. A significant proportion of diabetes patients have kidney disease, not all of which is caused by diabetic nephropathy but rather by other factors common in the general population (such as age, obesity, and hypertension), leading to renal impairment. Most T1DM patients exhibit histological changes typical of diabetic nephropathy. In young patients with uncomplicated T1DM, SUA levels are usually lower due to elevated blood glucose. This may explain why no causal association between uric acid and renal complications in patients with T1DM was observed in this study. Future research will provide important new data to clarify the true role of uric acid in diabetic nephropathy.

A meta-analysis of 35 studies from around the world showed that the overall prevalence of diabetic retinopathy among diabetic patients was 34.6%, and the overall prevalence of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) was 10.2%. VTDR has become one of the major causes of acquired blindness in working-age adults worldwide [20]. In a study of 385 patients with T2DM, high SUA was a risk factor for DR (OR = 1.264, 95%(CI) = 1.08–1.473, p = 0.003) [21], and a similar finding was reported in Japan [22]. However, a cross-sectional study in China found that elevated SUA was an independent protective factor for DR (OR = 0.997, 95%(CI) = 0.995–0.999, p = 0.018) [23]. A meta-analysis that included 4340 diabetic retinopathy patients and 8595 placebo patients revealed a linear dose‒response correlation of elevation in diabetic retinopathy patients with different SUAs, which progressively increased from nonsignificant to significant. The results of the study suggest that proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) participants had a significantly greater SUA than diabetic control participants, whereas there was no significant difference in non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) patients (WMD = 22.50, 95%(CI)=-6.07-51.08, p = 0.120, I2 = 97%, P < 0.001). The 21 studies included in this meta-analysis had significant heterogeneity and did not control for the use of anti-hyperuricemia medications, which may have influenced the final conclusions [24]. The results of our MR study suggested that genetically predicted increased SUA levels were not significantly causally related to the risk of diabetic retinopathy.

Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common chronic complications of DM, and the common types of diabetic neuropathy are distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSPN) and autonomic neuropathy. Previous studies have shown an association between SUA and an increase in the risk of diabetic neuropathy. A recent study included 230 T2DM patients to explore the relationship between SUA levels and DPN in patients with T2DM and divided them into a DPN group and a non-DPN group according to whether DPN was diagnosed [5]. The average SUA level in the DPN group was significantly greater than that in the control group [(6.72 ± 1.75) vs. (4.57 ± 1.49) mg/dl]. Logistic regression analysis suggested that with increasing SUA, the risk of DPN increased 2.2-fold. Another study showed that SUA ≥ 434 µmol/L was significantly associated with an increase in DPN compared to SUA < 262 µmol/L (OR = 1.54, 95%(CI) = 1.02–2.32) [21]. Hyperuricemia can contribute to the progression of diabetic neuropathy by causing vascular dysfunction, thrombosis, and the inhibition of NO release. According to the results of a meta-analysis that included 6134 patients, hyperuricemia was shown to be independently associated with an elevated risk of diabetic neuropathy in patients with T2DM [25]. However, a cross-sectional study revealed no association between hyperuricemia and diabetic polyneuropathy. In addition, in experimental animal studies, SUA was shown to have neuroprotective effects on dopaminergic neurons in Parkinson’s disease mice by modulating neuroinflammation and oxidative stress [26]. Due to the strong hydrophilic antioxidant effect of SUA, to some extent, this potential neuroprotective property may play an important role in neurodegenerative diseases [27]. Our MR findings suggested that genetically predicted increased SUA was not significantly causally related to the risk of diabetic neuropathy.

Since there is a lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials to draw definitive conclusions, we included a fairly large genetic homogeneity and well-characterized patient population in our MR analysis, and all SNPs identified as IVs were from European populations. This approach reduced the possibility of population stratification bias and enhanced the validity of the two-sample MR hypothesis. In addition, the strong correlation IVs (F statistic significantly more than 10) that we used in this study can mitigate the potential bias of sample overlap. Moreover, the selected SNPs were associated with SUA concentration but not with the outcome factor (diabetic microvascular complications). None of our sensitivity analyses suggested the presence of significant pleiotropy in which a single gene affects multiple traits. However, there are some limitations in our study. First, our exposure factors were obtained from the UKB queue, so this study lacked other GWAS summary statistics for positive control analysis. Second, since only summary-level GWAS statistics were available, there were no further subgroup analyses. Finally, our study is descriptive and therefore provides no insight into the underlying mechanisms of the progression of diabetic microvascular complications.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our MR analysis suggested a causal relationship between genetically predicted increases in SUA and diabetic microvascular complications. There was a significant causal relationship between SUA and diabetic nephropathy but not between SUA and diabetic retinopathy or diabetic neuropathy. This study contributes to providing evidence on the causal relationship between SUA and diabetic microvascular complications.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, Pinkepank M, Ogurtsova K, Duncan BB, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183:109119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker BF. Towards the physiological function of uric acid. Free Radic Biol Med. 1993;14(6):615–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Crawley WT, Jungels CG, Stenmark KR, Fini MA. U-shaped association of uric acid to overall-cause mortality and its impact on clinical management of hyperuricemia. Redox Biol. 2022;51:102271.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cassano V, Crescibene D, Hribal ML, et al. Uric acid and vascular damage in essential hypertension: role of insulin resistance[J]. Nutrients. 2020;12(9):2509.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fayazi HS, Yaseri M, Mortazavi SS, Sharifhassan Z, Assadinia AS. The relation between serum uric acid levels and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes in Guilan, north of Iran. BMC Endocr Disord. 2022;22(1):39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Xia Q, Zhang SH, Yang SM, Zhu XL, Su S, Hu AP, et al. Serum uric acid is independently associated with diabetic nephropathy but not diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Chin Med Assoc. 2020;83(4):350–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23(R1):R89–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37(7):658–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, Yarmolinsky J, Davies NM, Swanson SA, et al. Strengthening the reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology using mendelian randomization: the STROBE-MR Statement. JAMA. 2021;326(16):1614–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kurki MI, Karjalainen J, Palta P, Sipilä TP, Kristiansson K, Donner KM, et al. FinnGen provides genetic insights from a well-phenotyped isolated population. Nature. 2023;613(7944):508–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1961–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fu L, Wang Y, Hu YQ. Bi-directional causal effect between vitamin B12 and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: inferring from large population data. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1015046.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):377–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pacilli A, Viazzi F, Fioretto P, Giorda C, Ceriello A, Genovese S, AMD-Annals Study Group. Epidemiology of diabetic kidney disease in adult patients with type 1 diabetes in Italy: the AMD-Annals initiative. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2017;33(4).

  15. Lytvyn Y, Škrtić M, Yang GK, Yip PM, Perkins BA, Cherney DZ. Glycosuria-mediated urinary uric acid excretion in patients with uncomplicated type 1 diabetes mellitus. Am J Physiol Ren Physiol. 2015;308(2):F77–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zoppini G, Targher G, Chonchol M, Ortalda V, Abaterusso C, Pichiri I, et al. Serum uric acid levels and incident chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(1):99–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jalal DI, Rivard CJ, Johnson RJ, Maahs DM, McFann K, Rewers M, et al. Serum uric acid levels predict the development of albuminuria over 6 years in patients with type 1 diabetes: findings from the coronary artery calcification in type 1 diabetes study. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2010;25(6):1865–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ficociello LH, Rosolowsky ET, Niewczas MA, Maselli NJ, Weinberg JM, Aschengrau A, et al. High-normal serum uric acid increases risk of early progressive renal function loss in type 1 diabetes: results of a 6-year follow-up. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(6):1337–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ahola AJ, Sandholm N, Forsblom C, Harjutsalo V, Dahlström E, Groop PH, et al. The serum uric acid concentration is not causally linked to diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. Kidney Int. 2017;91(5):1178–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yau JW, Rogers SL, Kawasaki R, Lamoureux EL, Kowalski JW, Bek T, et al. Meta-analysis for Eye Disease (META-EYE) Study Group. Global prevalence and major risk factors of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(3):556–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaewput W, Thongprayoon C, Rangsin R, Jindarat S, Narindrarangkura P, Bathini T, et al. The Association between serum uric acid and Peripheral Neuropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes Mellitus: a Multicenter Nationwide CrossSectional Study. Korean J Fam Med. 2020;41(3):189–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuwata H, Okamura S, Hayashino Y, Tsujii S, Ishii H, Diabetes Distress and Care Registry at Tenri Study Group. Serum uric acid levels are associated with increased risk of newly developed diabetic retinopathy among Japanese male patients with type 2 diabetes: A prospective cohort study (diabetes distress and care registry at Tenri [DDCRT 13]). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2017;33(7).

  23. Cui J, Ren JP, Chen DN, Xin Z, Yuan MX, Xu J, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of diabetic retinopathy in Beijing, China: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e015473.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Guo Y, Liu S, Xu H. Uric Acid and Diabetic Retinopathy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2022;10:906760.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yu S, Chen Y, Hou X, Xu D, Che K, Li C, et al. Serum uric acid levels and Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Mol Neurobiol. 2016;53(2):1045–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang TT, Hao DL, Wu BN, Mao LL, Zhang J. Uric acid demonstrates neuroprotective effect on Parkinson’s disease mice through Nrf2-ARE signaling pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017;493(4):1443–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhuang Y, Huang H, Hu X, Zhang J, Cai Q. Serum uric acid and diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a double-edged sword. Acta Neurol Belg. 2023;123(3):857–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All the authors would like to thank all the collaborators involved in this study.

Funding

This project was supported by the grants from the Science and Technology Project in Henan (No. 222102310008), and the Joint Co-construction Project of Henan Medical Science and Technology Research Plan (No. LHGJ20230840).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hongli Wu and Xuefeng Li these authors share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China

    Hongli Wu, Xuefeng Li & Wenning Zhang

  2. Endocrinology and Metabolism Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, and College of Clinical Medicine of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China

    Huifang Peng & Hongwei Jiang

Authors
  1. Hongli Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuefeng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenning Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huifang Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hongwei Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HW, XL and HP designed the study. HW and WZ collected and analyzed the data. HW, HP and HJ wrote and edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huifang Peng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, H., Li, X., Zhang, W. et al. Causality between serum uric acid and diabetic microvascular complications - a mendelian randomization study. Diabetol Metab Syndr 16, 134 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01377-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01377-x

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us