Stroke
Stroke is a serious medical condition that occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced, preventing brain tissue from getting oxygen and nutrients. This can lead to brain cells dying. Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide and accounts for approximately one in every 20 deaths in the United States[1].
Biological Basis
Section titled “Biological Basis”The two main types of stroke are ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. An ischemic stroke, which accounts for about 87% of all strokes, occurs when a blood clot blocks or narrows an artery leading to the brain, restricting blood flow[1]. A hemorrhagic stroke occurs when a blood vessel in the brain leaks or ruptures, causing bleeding into the brain tissue. Both types disrupt normal brain function, leading to neurological damage. Genetic factors are known to play a role in an individual’s susceptibility to stroke, influencing risk, subtype, and even outcome[2].
Clinical Relevance
Section titled “Clinical Relevance”Stroke is a medical emergency requiring immediate treatment to minimize brain damage and potential complications. Clinical presentation can vary widely depending on the affected area of the brain, leading to diverse symptoms such as sudden weakness or numbness on one side of the body, difficulty speaking or understanding speech, vision problems, or severe headache. Early diagnosis and intervention are crucial for improving patient outcomes. Research has identified common genetic variations associated with stroke risk and its subtypes through large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS)[3]. These studies have shown that genetic factors can explain a significant portion of the variance in stroke phenotypes, ranging from 16% to 40% for ischemic stroke and 34% to 73% for intracerebral hemorrhage[3]. Specific genetic variants have been linked to particular stroke subtypes, such asHDAC9with large vessel ischemic stroke[4], variants at 6p21.1 with large artery atherosclerotic stroke[5], and genetic variation at 16q24.2 with small vessel stroke[6].
Social Importance
Section titled “Social Importance”Stroke carries immense social importance due to its significant impact on public health, healthcare systems, and the quality of life for individuals and their families. It is a major cause of long-term disability, often requiring extensive rehabilitation and ongoing care, which places a substantial burden on healthcare resources and caregivers. The prevalence of ischemic stroke tends to increase with age, affecting those over 65 years[1], further contributing to its societal impact in aging populations. Understanding the genetic underpinnings of stroke is critical for improving risk prediction, developing targeted prevention strategies, and advancing personalized treatments, ultimately aiming to reduce the global burden of this devastating condition.
Limitations
Section titled “Limitations”Understanding the genetic underpinnings of stroke is a complex endeavor, and current research faces several inherent limitations that influence the interpretation and generalizability of findings. These limitations span methodological constraints, the diverse nature of stroke, and the incomplete understanding of its multifactorial causes.
Methodological and Statistical Constraints
Section titled “Methodological and Statistical Constraints”Many genetic studies on stroke, including genome-wide association studies (GWAS), contend with statistical power issues due to the typically small effect sizes of individual genetic variants. For instance, despite including over 6,000 patients with ischemic stroke, one study identified only a single significant locus, suggesting that the genetic variation for ischemic stroke outcomes is not fully explained and that even large sample sizes may be insufficient to detect all relevant variants with small effects[7]. This limitation can lead to an underestimation of the true genetic architecture of stroke and hinder the discovery of additional risk loci. Furthermore, while meta-analyses combine data from multiple studies to increase power, some research has highlighted that joint analysis approaches can be more efficient than traditional replication-based two-stage designs for identifying associations[8], implying that some past strategies might have missed important signals.
Another critical limitation in study design involves the replication of novel findings. Several studies identify new associations at genome-wide significance but acknowledge the absence of independent replication for these specific findings [6]. Without independent validation, the robustness and reproducibility of these associations remain uncertain, necessitating further evidence. Moreover, while stringent genome-wide significance thresholds (e.g., p < 5 × 10−8) are crucial for minimizing false positives [3], they may inadvertently overlook variants with genuine but more modest effects that do not reach this high statistical bar. The comparison of effect sizes across studies can also be challenging due to differences in study populations or methodologies [9], which can complicate the synthesis of evidence.
Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Generalizability
Section titled “Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Generalizability”Stroke is not a single disease but a heterogeneous group of conditions, which presents a significant challenge for genetic research. This inherent heterogeneity of stroke[3]means that combining studies with varying definitions or classifications of stroke subtypes can introduce phenotypic variability, potentially obscuring true genetic associations or leading to findings specific to certain subtypes[6]. Many genetic associations identified thus far are specific to particular ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke types, rather than broadly applicable to overall stroke risk[3]. This specificity limits the generalizability of findings across the entire spectrum of stroke and its diverse presentations.
Measurement concerns also contribute to phenotypic variability. While some studies employ rigorous methods like volumetric analysis of MRI scans to quantify markers such as white matter hyperintensities, which is superior to rating scales that can have ceiling effects [6], many studies may still rely on less precise phenotyping methods. Such differences in phenotype assessment across studies, or even within large collaborative efforts, can impact the consistency and comparability of genetic associations. Although multi-ancestry studies are increasingly common and beneficial [10], differences in genetic backgrounds and population-specific allele frequencies can still influence the transferability of findings across diverse ancestral groups, highlighting ongoing challenges in achieving universal generalizability.
Unaccounted Factors and Remaining Knowledge Gaps
Section titled “Unaccounted Factors and Remaining Knowledge Gaps”Despite advances in identifying genetic risk loci, a substantial portion of the heritability of stroke remains unexplained. The proportion of phenotype variance explained by genome-wide genotypes for ischemic stroke ranges from 16% to 40%, and for intracerebral hemorrhage, between 34% and 73%[3]. This “missing heritability” indicates that many genetic factors, possibly including rare variants, structural variations, or complex gene-gene interactions, are yet to be discovered. The overall success in identifying stroke loci has been less pronounced compared to some other complex phenotypes[3], suggesting significant gaps in the current understanding of stroke genetics.
Furthermore, environmental factors and epigenetic modifications are known to play crucial roles in stroke risk and outcome, but their complex interplay with genetic predispositions is often difficult to fully account for in genetic studies. Differences in environmental exposures and possible epigenetic modifications can significantly contribute to phenotypic variability and potentially alter research outcomes[6]. The intricate gene-environment interactions, which are challenging to capture comprehensively in large-scale studies, represent a substantial knowledge gap. A complete understanding of stroke etiology requires integrating these environmental and epigenetic influences with genetic findings, which current research is still striving to achieve.
Variants
Section titled “Variants”Genetic variations contribute significantly to an individual’s susceptibility to stroke by influencing a range of biological processes, from lipid metabolism and coagulation to cellular function and inflammation. Understanding these variants provides insight into the complex mechanisms underlying stroke.
Variants affecting lipid and glucose metabolism are pivotal in shaping an individual’s risk for stroke, primarily through their role in atherosclerosis. TheABCG5 gene, involved in the transport of sterols, and its variant rs56266464 , can modulate cholesterol levels, a key factor in vascular health. Similarly, the HERPUD1 - CETP locus, featuring the variant rs247617 , impacts the activity of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein (CETP), an enzyme central to cholesterol trafficking among lipoproteins; variations here can affect protective HDL cholesterol levels and increase the risk of vascular disease. TheGCKRgene, which regulates glucokinase, a pivotal enzyme in glucose metabolism, and its variantrs780094 , are associated with altered glucose and triglyceride levels, linking them to metabolic disorders that heighten stroke susceptibility. Furthermore, theCELSR2 gene, located in a region often associated with lipid profiles, and its variant rs629301 , consistently correlate with LDL cholesterol levels, a primary driver of atherosclerotic plaque formation [10]. Finally, LPL, or Lipoprotein Lipase, a crucial enzyme for breaking down triglycerides in lipoproteins, can have its function modified by variants likers765547 , leading to dyslipidemia that contributes to ischemic stroke[11].
Other genetic factors influence stroke through coagulation pathways, vascular inflammation, and basic blood characteristics. TheF5 gene, encoding Coagulation Factor V, is famously associated with the rs6025 variant, often called Factor V Leiden. This mutation leads to Factor V being resistant to inactivation by activated protein C, resulting in a hypercoagulable state that significantly increases the risk of thrombotic events, including ischemic stroke. TheABO blood group gene, with the variant rs529565 , also influences stroke susceptibility; studies have shown that ischemic stroke is associated with the ABO locus, where non-O blood types are linked to higher levels of pro-coagulant factors[12]. Furthermore, the CDKN2B-AS1locus, a long non-coding RNA also known as ANRIL, is a well-established genetic hotspot for cardiovascular disease. Variants such asrs1333049 , rs4007642 , and rs7028268 within this region on chromosome 9p21.3 are strongly associated with atherosclerotic stroke, likely by influencing vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and inflammation through the regulation of cell cycle genes like CDKN2B[10], [6].
Beyond common pathways, other genes and their variants are implicated in stroke through diverse cellular processes. TheZPR1 gene, encoding Zinc Finger Protein 1, and its variant rs964184 , are involved in fundamental cellular activities such as proliferation and ribosome biogenesis, processes critical for maintaining vascular integrity and cellular responses to stress, which can indirectly impact stroke risk[13]. Similarly, the THEMIS3P - AKR1B1P6 locus, containing the variant rs8082812 , involves pseudogenes. While often non-coding, pseudogenes can sometimes exert regulatory roles on their functional counterparts or other genes, potentially influencing cellular pathways relevant to vascular health or inflammation, thereby contributing to stroke susceptibility as part of the complex genetic landscape identified in genome-wide association studies[3].
Key Variants
Section titled “Key Variants”Core Definition and Diagnostic Frameworks
Section titled “Core Definition and Diagnostic Frameworks”Stroke is precisely defined as a neurological event characterized by symptoms of rapid onset that persist for at least 24 hours, or until death if the participant dies within 24 hours of symptom onset[11]. This temporal criterion is crucial for distinguishing stroke from transient ischemic attacks (TIAs). Operational definitions, particularly in research and clinical data collection, often rely on standardized coding systems; for instance, acute ischemic stroke can be identified by specific ICD-9-CM discharge diagnosis codes, such as 433.x1, 434 (excluding 434.x0), and 436, while excluding codes related to head injury or rehabilitation[14]. The diagnostic process utilizes both clinical presentation and imaging criteria to ascertain the presence and type of stroke[11].
Classification and Subtypes
Section titled “Classification and Subtypes”Stroke is broadly classified into several categories, primarily ischemic strokes, hemorrhagic strokes, and strokes of unknown type[11]. Within ischemic stroke, which accounts for a significant proportion of all strokes, further subdivisions are made based on etiology and affected vessel size, including atherothrombotic and cardioembolic subtypes[11]. Other distinct ischemic subtypes include large vessel ischemic stroke[4]and small vessel stroke (SVS), the latter comprising approximately one-quarter of all ischemic strokes and representing a clinically overt manifestation[6]. The concept of “stroke liability” is employed in research to describe an individual’s underlying propensity to experience a stroke, interpreted on a normally distributed scale where earlier age-at-onset cases are assumed to have higher liability[6].
Clinical Terminology and Associated Factors
Section titled “Clinical Terminology and Associated Factors”The nomenclature surrounding stroke includes key terms like ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and specific subtypes such as small vessel stroke (SVS) and large vessel ischemic stroke. Standardized vocabularies, like the ICD-9-CM codes, are fundamental for consistent classification and research, defining conditions like acute ischemic stroke[14]. Various clinical and biochemical factors are associated with stroke risk and are often measured as part of diagnostic and research criteria. These include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and specific biomarkers such as blood pressure (systolic and diastolic), fasting plasma glucose, blood hemoglobin A1c, serum triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and serum uric acid[15]. Other relevant factors include homocysteine (Hcy), von Willebrand Factor (vWF), and fibrinogen[16].
Signs and Symptoms
Section titled “Signs and Symptoms”Diverse Clinical Phenotypes of Stroke
Section titled “Diverse Clinical Phenotypes of Stroke”Stroke presents with a spectrum of clinical manifestations, characterized by diverse phenotypes that reflect the underlying pathology and affected brain regions. Ischemic stroke, a common type, encompasses subtypes such as large vessel ischemic stroke and small vessel stroke, each potentially presenting with distinct patterns of neurological deficits[4], [5], [6], [3]. Another specific presentation is young-onset stroke, which highlights how age can influence the clinical picture and associated risk factors[12].
The identification of these clinical phenotypes is critical for accurate differential diagnosis and targeted management strategies. For example, large artery atherosclerotic stroke and small vessel stroke are linked to distinct genetic predispositions, underscoring the diagnostic value of subtyping[5], [6]. Additionally, cryptogenic stroke, where the etiology remains unknown, represents a significant clinical challenge, while shared genetic susceptibility between ischemic stroke and coronary artery disease indicates common biological pathways that may influence presentation[17], [18].
Assessment of Stroke Impact and Prognosis
Section titled “Assessment of Stroke Impact and Prognosis”Beyond the immediate neurological deficits, the comprehensive assessment of stroke involves evaluating its long-term impact through functional outcome, which serves as a crucial prognostic indicator. Standardized measurement scales are employed to quantify the degree of functional impairment or recovery post-stroke, providing objective data to guide rehabilitation planning and assess treatment efficacy[19], [7]. These objective measures are vital for understanding the severity range and predicting the trajectory of recovery.
In addition to functional assessments, neuroimaging findings such as cerebral white matter hyperintensities are commonly observed in stroke patients and provide further diagnostic and prognostic insights[6]. These markers can correlate with the long-term consequences of stroke and contribute to a more complete understanding of the disease’s burden. The precise measurement of these objective signs aids in monitoring disease progression and tailoring patient-specific interventions.
Heterogeneity and Atypical Presentations
Section titled “Heterogeneity and Atypical Presentations”The clinical presentation and outcome of stroke are marked by significant inter-individual variability, influenced by a range of factors including age, sex, and ancestry. Young-onset stroke is a recognized distinct entity, often associated with specific genetic loci and potentially presenting with different clinical courses compared to stroke in older populations[12]. Furthermore, studies have identified genetic risk factors for stroke in diverse populations, such as African Americans, indicating that genetic background can contribute to phenotypic diversity and influence presentation patterns[20].
This inherent heterogeneity necessitates a thorough clinical evaluation to identify atypical presentations that may deviate from common patterns. Recognizing these variations is paramount for establishing an accurate diagnosis, differentiating stroke from other conditions, and developing personalized prognostic indicators[10]. The understanding of these diverse presentations and their underlying genetic and demographic correlates helps to refine clinical correlations and improve patient care.
Causes of Stroke
Section titled “Causes of Stroke”Stroke is a complex neurological condition influenced by a multifaceted interplay of genetic predispositions, age-related changes, and other contributing factors. Research, particularly large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS), has significantly advanced our understanding of the underlying causes, revealing a substantial heritable component and specific molecular pathways involved.
Genetic Foundations of Stroke Risk
Section titled “Genetic Foundations of Stroke Risk”Stroke has a significant genetic component, with common genetic variations identified through collaborative genome-wide association studies (GWAS) contributing to an individual’s risk[21]. The genetic heritability for ischemic stroke is estimated to range between 16% and 40%, while for intracerebral hemorrhage, it can be as high as 34% to 73%[21]. Many identified genetic associations are specific to particular stroke subtypes, though some risk loci contribute to overall ischemic stroke risk[21].
Specific genetic variants have been linked to distinct stroke subtypes. For instance, variants in theHDAC9gene are associated with large vessel ischemic stroke, potentially exertingcis-effects on its mechanisms [4]. Other notable findings include common variants at 6p21.1 associated with large artery atherosclerotic stroke[5], and genetic variation at 16q24.2 linked to small vessel stroke[6]. A comprehensive multiancestry GWAS identified 32 distinct loci associated with stroke and its various subtypes, highlighting the polygenic nature of stroke risk[10]. Furthermore, low-frequency variants in PATJhave been associated with worse functional outcomes following ischemic stroke[19].
Shared Genetic Susceptibility and Comorbidities
Section titled “Shared Genetic Susceptibility and Comorbidities”A significant aspect of stroke etiology involves shared genetic susceptibility with other cardiovascular diseases. Ischemic stroke, in particular, exhibits common genetic variants with coronary artery disease[18]. This overlap suggests that common biological pathways and mechanisms contribute to the development of both conditions, underpinning the strong comorbidity observed between them. Understanding these shared genetic roots can provide insights into broader cardiovascular health and disease prevention strategies.
Age-Related Influences and Stroke Liability
Section titled “Age-Related Influences and Stroke Liability”Age is a predominant non-modifiable risk factor for stroke, with ischemic stroke tending to affect individuals older than 65 years[1]. The concept of “stroke liability” integrates age-at-onset into the assessment of an individual’s underlying propensity for stroke[6]. In this framework, cases with an earlier age-at-onset are considered to have a higher inherent stroke liability compared to those with later onset, reflecting a more extreme underlying predisposition given the lower prevalence of stroke at younger ages[6]. This approach highlights how the timing of disease manifestation interacts with an individual’s genetic and physiological makeup to influence overall risk.
Genetic Architecture and Risk Factors
Section titled “Genetic Architecture and Risk Factors”Stroke has a recognized genetic component, with numerous studies identifying specific genetic risk factors that contribute to its development. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been instrumental in uncovering common genetic variants associated with both overall stroke and its various subtypes. For instance, a variant inHDAC9has been linked to large vessel ischemic stroke, while common variants at 6p21.1 are associated with large artery atherosclerotic stroke[4]. Further research has revealed associations between genetic variation at 16q24.2 and small vessel stroke, and a locus on chromosome 10q25 nearHABP2has been identified in young-onset stroke[6]. Large-scale meta-analyses have expanded this understanding, identifying 32 loci associated with stroke and its subtypes across diverse ancestries, alongside additional risk loci for stroke and small vessel disease[10].
Beyond specific loci, there is evidence of shared genetic susceptibility between ischemic stroke and coronary artery disease, suggesting common underlying genetic pathways for these cardiovascular conditions[18]. Genetic risk factors for stroke have also been identified in specific populations, such as African Americans, highlighting the importance of population-specific genetic studies to capture the full spectrum of genetic influences[20]. While a genetic role in stroke is clear, the ongoing challenge involves pinpointing the specific common genetic risk factors and understanding the complex regulatory networks through which these variants exert their effects[2].
Molecular and Cellular Pathways in Stroke Pathogenesis
Section titled “Molecular and Cellular Pathways in Stroke Pathogenesis”At the molecular and cellular level, specific genes and their products play crucial roles in the intricate pathways leading to and influencing stroke outcomes. For instance, variants inHDAC9(Histone Deacetylase 9) are associated with large vessel ischemic stroke, and these genetic variations may exert cis-effects, potentially influencing gene expression or function in a localized manner[4]. Another gene, PATJ, has low-frequency variants associated with worse functional outcomes following ischemic stroke, suggesting its involvement in cellular processes critical for recovery or disease progression[19]. While the precise molecular mechanisms of HABP2(Hyaluronan Binding Protein 2) in stroke are still being elucidated, its proximity to a locus identified in young-onset stroke indicates its potential involvement in early disease pathways[12].
Beyond gene-specific effects, cellular functions like platelet reactivity are central to stroke pathophysiology, particularly in thrombotic events. Platelets are key biomolecules involved in blood clotting, and their abnormal activation or aggregation can lead to vessel occlusion. The response of platelets to antiplatelet medications, such as clopidogrel, highlights the significance of these cellular processes and their regulation in stroke prevention and treatment[22]. Understanding these molecular and cellular pathways, including the functions of critical proteins and their regulatory networks, is essential for deciphering the complex biology of stroke.
Pathophysiological Processes and Stroke Subtypes
Section titled “Pathophysiological Processes and Stroke Subtypes”Stroke encompasses a spectrum of pathophysiological processes, primarily categorized into ischemic and hemorrhagic types, though research often focuses predominantly on ischemic stroke and its subtypes. Ischemic stroke, which accounts for the majority of cases, results from an interruption of blood supply to a part of the brain. This interruption can arise from large artery atherosclerosis, where plaque buildup in major vessels leads to occlusion, a mechanism linked to specific genetic variants[5]. Another significant subtype is small vessel disease (SVD), which involves damage to the brain’s smaller blood vessels and constitutes approximately one-quarter of all ischemic strokes[6]. SVD is a clinically overt manifestation of broader cerebrovascular pathology and is associated with distinct genetic risk loci [3].
These distinct pathophysiological mechanisms manifest differently at the tissue and organ level. For instance, small vessel disease can lead to cerebral white matter hyperintensities (WMH), which are visible on brain imaging and reflect underlying tissue damage and homeostatic disruptions within the brain’s white matter[6]. The progression of these disease mechanisms, from plaque formation in large arteries to microvascular damage in small vessels, involves complex interactions that disrupt normal cerebral blood flow and oxygen delivery, ultimately leading to neuronal injury and functional impairment.
Systemic Connections and Clinical Manifestations
Section titled “Systemic Connections and Clinical Manifestations”Stroke is not an isolated event but often represents a systemic consequence of broader cardiovascular health issues, highlighting significant tissue and organ-level interactions. A notable example is the shared genetic susceptibility between ischemic stroke and coronary artery disease, indicating common biological pathways and systemic risk factors that predispose individuals to both conditions[18]. This shared genetic background underscores the interconnectedness of the vascular system throughout the body.
At the organ level, the brain bears the direct impact of stroke, leading to various clinical manifestations and long-term consequences. The extent of brain injury, such as cerebral white matter hyperintensities, can reflect the severity and type of underlying cerebrovascular pathology, particularly small vessel disease[6]. Furthermore, genetic factors, like low-frequency variants in PATJ, can influence the functional outcome after an ischemic stroke, demonstrating how molecular variations can dictate the brain’s capacity for recovery and rehabilitation[19]. Understanding these systemic connections and their organ-specific effects is crucial for a holistic view of stroke biology and for developing comprehensive strategies for prevention and treatment.
Genetic Regulation and Vascular Integrity
Section titled “Genetic Regulation and Vascular Integrity”Genetic variants play a crucial role in regulating pathways that maintain vascular integrity and influence stroke risk. For instance, variants inHDAC9are associated with large vessel ischemic stroke, suggesting a mechanism where genetic variations exertcis-effects, likely by altering gene expression profiles relevant to arterial health [4]. Histone deacetylases (HDACs) are enzymes involved in chromatin remodeling, which fundamentally impacts gene regulation, thus dysregulation via HDAC9 variants could lead to altered transcription factor activity and subsequent changes in protein expression critical for vascular function. Similarly, a common coding variant in SERPINA1increases the risk for large artery stroke[10]. SERPINA1 encodes alpha-1 antitrypsin, a protease inhibitor; its genetic variations can lead to imbalances in protease-antiprotease activity, potentially affecting inflammation, extracellular matrix remodeling, and overall vascular wall integrity, thereby contributing to atherosclerotic processes.
These regulatory mechanisms highlight how subtle genetic changes can propagate through intracellular signaling cascades and gene expression programs to influence the structural and functional properties of blood vessels. Such pathway dysregulation can compromise the delicate balance required for maintaining healthy arteries, leading to increased susceptibility to conditions like atherosclerosis, a primary contributor to large vessel stroke[5]. Understanding these genetic regulatory points offers insights into the hierarchical regulation of vascular biology and identifies potential therapeutic targets for disease prevention.
Coagulation, Platelet Function, and Thrombosis
Section titled “Coagulation, Platelet Function, and Thrombosis”Pathways governing blood coagulation and platelet activity are central to the mechanisms of stroke, particularly ischemic stroke, which often results from a thrombus blocking a blood vessel. Genetic studies have identified loci associated with thrombosis, indicating that inherited predispositions can significantly influence the risk of clot formation[23]. One such example is a locus on chromosome 10q25 near HABP2, which has been associated with young-onset stroke[12]. HABP2 is known to be involved in coagulation, suggesting that variants in this region may alter the finely tuned balance of the coagulation cascade, leading to increased thrombotic tendencies.
Furthermore, genetic variants influencing platelet reactivity and cardiovascular response, particularly in patients treated with antiplatelet medications like clopidogrel, underscore the importance of platelet-mediated thrombosis in stroke etiology[22]. Dysregulation in these signaling pathways, from receptor activation on platelet surfaces to intracellular signaling cascades that mediate platelet aggregation, can result in hyperactive platelets or an overactive coagulation system. These network interactions ultimately contribute to the emergent property of increased clot burden, leading to vessel occlusion and ischemic stroke.
Metabolic Interplay and Systemic Vascular Risk
Section titled “Metabolic Interplay and Systemic Vascular Risk”Stroke mechanisms are deeply intertwined with broader metabolic pathways and systemic conditions, demonstrating significant pathway crosstalk and network interactions. There is a shared genetic susceptibility between ischemic stroke and coronary artery disease, indicating common underlying pathogenic mechanisms that affect the cardiovascular system[18]. This overlap suggests that metabolic pathways, such as those involved in lipid metabolism, inflammation, and endothelial function, contribute to the development of both conditions. For instance, dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation are known to drive atherosclerosis, a major risk factor for both stroke and coronary artery disease.
Further evidence of metabolic integration comes from the discovery of numerous risk loci shared between type 2 diabetes and related vascular outcomes, including stroke[14]. This suggests that dysregulation in energy metabolism, insulin signaling, and glucose homeostasis can significantly impact vascular health. These metabolic perturbations can lead to endothelial dysfunction, increased oxidative stress, and altered biosynthesis of key vascular components, creating a pro-atherothrombotic environment. The integration of these metabolic and vascular pathways highlights how systemic metabolic dysregulation can cascade into localized vascular pathology, increasing overall stroke risk.
Cellular Responses and Neurological Outcome
Section titled “Cellular Responses and Neurological Outcome”Beyond the initial vascular event, the cellular and molecular responses within the brain and the subsequent recovery processes are critical pathways determining functional outcome after stroke. Genetic variants can influence these post-stroke mechanisms, impacting the brain’s ability to cope with injury and facilitate repair. For example, low-frequency variants inPATJhave been associated with worse ischemic stroke functional outcome[19]. While the precise mechanisms are complex, PATJ is known to be a scaffold protein involved in cell polarity and tight junction formation, which are crucial for maintaining blood-brain barrier integrity and neuronal organization.
Dysregulation in such proteins could impair cellular signaling cascades involved in neuronal survival, inflammation resolution, or neuroplasticity following ischemic injury. These variations may modulate the efficacy of compensatory mechanisms, influencing the extent of tissue damage, the inflammatory response, and the brain’s capacity for repair and rehabilitation [19]. Understanding how these genetic factors modulate cellular responses and post-stroke recovery pathways offers critical insights into emergent properties of brain resilience and identifies targets for improving long-term neurological outcomes.
Clinical Relevance
Section titled “Clinical Relevance”Genetic Risk Factors and Early Identification
Section titled “Genetic Risk Factors and Early Identification”Genetic research significantly contributes to refining risk assessment models, enabling clinicians to identify individuals at high risk for stroke before symptom onset. Large-scale meta-analyses have pinpointed numerous genetic loci associated with overall stroke and its subtypes, including additional risk loci for small vessel disease, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of genetic predisposition[3]. Such genetic insights can inform personalized medicine approaches, potentially guiding targeted prevention strategies for individuals with a heightened genetic susceptibility. This is particularly relevant for diverse populations, with studies identifying genetic risk factors specifically in African Americans, and for specific demographics like young-onset stroke patients, where distinct loci have been identified[20].
Stroke Subtype Characterization and Treatment Selection
Section titled “Stroke Subtype Characterization and Treatment Selection”Genetic research significantly aids in characterizing different ischemic stroke subtypes, which is vital for precise diagnosis and tailored treatment. Variants like those inHDAC9have been associated with large vessel ischemic stroke, suggesting potential mechanisms through cis-effects and offering targets for subtype-specific interventions[4]. Similarly, common variants at 6p21.1 are linked to large artery atherosclerotic stroke, while genetic variations at 16q24.2 are associated with small vessel stroke[5]. Identifying these subtype-specific genetic markers allows for more accurate diagnostic utility, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate monitoring strategies and potentially influencing treatment pathways based on the underlying etiology.
Prognosis and Long-Term Patient Management
Section titled “Prognosis and Long-Term Patient Management”Genetic markers also hold significant prognostic value, helping to predict patient outcomes and disease progression following a stroke. For example, specific low-frequency variants inPATJhave been linked to worse functional outcomes after ischemic stroke, which can inform the planning of rehabilitation strategies[19]. Comprehensive genome-wide association meta-analyses on functional outcome after ischemic stroke, measured by the modified Rankin Scale at three months, further support the utility of genetics in predicting long-term implications, even after adjusting for factors like age, sex, and baseline NIH Stroke Scale score[7]. These predictions enable more proactive and personalized long-term patient management, optimizing care trajectories and improving patient quality of life.
Shared Genetic Susceptibility and Comorbidities
Section titled “Shared Genetic Susceptibility and Comorbidities”Research has illuminated shared genetic susceptibilities between stroke and other significant cardiovascular conditions, highlighting overlapping disease mechanisms and clinical implications. A notable finding is the shared genetic susceptibility between ischemic stroke and coronary artery disease, identified through genome-wide analyses of common variants[18]. This shared genetic background implies that individuals predisposed to one condition might also be at increased risk for the other, necessitating a holistic approach to patient assessment and preventative care. Furthermore, genetic studies have identified associations with conditions like cerebral white matter hyperintensities in stroke patients, which represent associated complications or markers of disease progression, underscoring the interconnectedness of cerebrovascular pathologies[6].
Frequently Asked Questions About Stroke
Section titled “Frequently Asked Questions About Stroke”These questions address the most important and specific aspects of stroke based on current genetic research.
1. My parent had a stroke; does that mean I’m more likely to get one?
Section titled “1. My parent had a stroke; does that mean I’m more likely to get one?”Yes, genetic factors are known to play a role in an individual’s susceptibility to stroke. If stroke runs in your family, it suggests you may have some shared genetic predispositions that increase your risk. However, genetics only contribute to a portion of the risk, and it doesn’t guarantee you will have a stroke.
2. Can I lower my stroke risk even if it runs in my family?
Section titled “2. Can I lower my stroke risk even if it runs in my family?”Absolutely. While your genes influence your risk, lifestyle choices are crucial for prevention. Understanding your genetic susceptibility can help you focus on preventative strategies, such as managing blood pressure and cholesterol, which are key to reducing stroke risk. Early diagnosis and intervention are vital regardless of genetic background.
3. As I get older, does my genetic risk for stroke increase?
Section titled “3. As I get older, does my genetic risk for stroke increase?”The prevalence of ischemic stroke, the most common type, does tend to increase with age, especially after 65. While your genetic makeup doesn’t change, its influence might become more apparent as other risk factors accumulate over time. This highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and prevention as you age.
4. Would a DNA test tell me if I’m at risk for stroke?
Section titled “4. Would a DNA test tell me if I’m at risk for stroke?”Genetic studies have identified many common genetic variations linked to stroke risk and its subtypes. A DNA test could reveal if you carry some of these specific variants, such asHDAC9associated with large vessel ischemic stroke or genetic variation at 16q24.2 linked to small vessel stroke. However, these tests show susceptibility, not certainty, and don’t cover all genetic factors.
5. Why do some people get strokes even without obvious risk factors?
Section titled “5. Why do some people get strokes even without obvious risk factors?”Stroke is a complex condition, and genetic factors can explain a significant portion of the risk, even in seemingly healthy individuals. For example, genetic factors can account for 16% to 40% of ischemic stroke and 34% to 73% of intracerebral hemorrhage. These underlying genetic predispositions can increase susceptibility even when traditional risk factors are not prominent.
6. Does it matter if my family had a ‘specific type’ of stroke?
Section titled “6. Does it matter if my family had a ‘specific type’ of stroke?”Yes, it matters greatly because stroke is a heterogeneous group of conditions, not a single disease. Genetic associations are often specific to particular stroke subtypes, likeHDAC9with large vessel ischemic stroke or genetic variation at 6p21.1 with large artery atherosclerotic stroke. Knowing the specific type in your family can offer more targeted insights into your own potential genetic risks.
7. If I have a stroke, does my genetics affect how well I recover?
Section titled “7. If I have a stroke, does my genetics affect how well I recover?”Yes, genetic factors are known to influence not just stroke risk and subtype, but also the outcome after a stroke. Research has explored how genetic variations can impact functional recovery. This understanding is crucial for developing personalized treatment and rehabilitation strategies to improve patient outcomes.
8. Could knowing my genes help me prevent a stroke?
Section titled “8. Could knowing my genes help me prevent a stroke?”Yes, understanding your genetic underpinnings for stroke is critical for improving risk prediction and developing targeted prevention strategies. If you know you carry certain genetic predispositions, you and your doctor can implement more aggressive or personalized preventive measures to reduce your overall risk.
9. Are there ‘hidden’ genetic risks for stroke I wouldn’t know about?
Section titled “9. Are there ‘hidden’ genetic risks for stroke I wouldn’t know about?”Yes, many genetic studies face limitations due to the typically small effect sizes of individual genetic variants. This means there are likely many more genetic factors influencing stroke risk that haven’t been fully identified yet, or their effects are too modest to be easily detected. Current research continues to uncover more of these subtle genetic influences.
10. How much of my stroke risk is actually due to my genes?
Section titled “10. How much of my stroke risk is actually due to my genes?”Genetic factors can explain a significant portion of the variation in stroke risk. For ischemic stroke, genetic factors can account for 16% to 40% of the variance, and for intracerebral hemorrhage, this can range from 34% to 73%. This shows that while genes are important, other environmental and lifestyle factors also play a substantial role.
This FAQ was automatically generated based on current genetic research and may be updated as new information becomes available.
Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a healthcare provider for personalized medical guidance.
References
Section titled “References”[1] von Berg, J. et al. “Alternate approach to stroke phenotyping identifies a genetic risk locus for small vessel stroke.”Eur J Hum Genet, vol. 28, no. 5, 2020, pp. 696-708.
[2] Matarin, M. et al. “A genome-wide genotyping study in patients with ischaemic stroke: initial analysis and data release.”Lancet Neurol, vol. 6, no. 5, 2007, pp. 414-23.
[3] Chauhan, G. et al. “Identification of additional risk loci for stroke and small vessel disease: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies.”Lancet Neurol, vol. 16, no. 6, 2017, pp. 433-443.
[4] Bellenguez, C. et al. “Genome-wide association study identifies a variant in HDAC9 associated with large vessel ischemic stroke.”Nat Genet, vol. 44, 2012.
[5] Holliday, E. G. et al. “Common variants at 6p21.1 are associated with large artery atherosclerotic stroke.”Nat Genet, vol. 44, no. 9, 2012, pp. 1045-1049.
[6] Traylor, M. et al. “Genetic variation at 16q24.2 is associated with small vessel stroke.”Ann Neurol, vol. 81, no. 1, 2017, pp. 77-88.
[7] Soderholm, M. et al. “Genome-wide association meta-analysis of functional outcome after ischemic stroke.”Neurology, vol. 92, no. 12, 2019, pp. e1334-e1344.
[8] Skol, AD., et al. “Joint analysis is more efficient than replication-based analysis for two-stage genome-wide association studies.” Nat Genet, vol. 38, no. 2, 2006, pp. 209-13. PMID: 16415888.
[9] Ishigaki, K., et al. “Large-scale genome-wide association study in a Japanese population identifies novel susceptibility loci across different diseases.” Nat Genet, vol. 52, no. 7, 2020, pp. 741-51. PMID: 32514122.
[10] Malik R et al. “Multiancestry genome-wide association study of 520,000 subjects identifies 32 loci associated with stroke and stroke subtypes.”Nat Genet, 2018.
[11] Ikram MA et al. “Genomewide association studies of stroke.”N Engl J Med, 2009.
[12] Cheng, Y. C., et al. “Genome-Wide Association Analysis of Young-Onset Stroke Identifies a Locus on Chromosome 10q25 Near HABP2.”Stroke, vol. 48, no. 2, 2017, pp. 288-94.
[13] Westphal S et al. “Genome-wide association study of myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, acute stroke, acute kidney injury and delirium after cardiac surgery - a sub-analysis of the RIPHeart-Study.”BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2019.
[14] Vujkovic, M. et al. “Discovery of 318 new risk loci for type 2 diabetes and related vascular outcomes among 1.4 million participants in a multi-ancestry meta-analysis.” Nat Genet, 2020.
[15] Yamada, Y., et al. “Identification of nine genes as novel susceptibility loci for early-onset ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage.”Biomed Rep, vol. 9, no. 1, 2018, pp. 46-52.
[16] Williams, S. R., et al. “Genetic Drivers of von Willebrand Factor Levels in an Ischemic Stroke Population and Association With Risk for Recurrent Stroke.”Stroke, vol. 49, no. 6, 2018, pp. 1335-1342.
[17] Pulit, S. L., et al. “Loci associated with ischaemic stroke and its subtypes (SiGN): a genome-wide association study.”Lancet Neurol, vol. 16, no. 3, 2017, pp. 174-84.
[18] Dichgans, M. et al. “Shared genetic susceptibility to ischemic stroke and coronary artery disease: a genome-wide analysis of common variants.”Stroke, vol. 45, no. 1, 2014, pp. 24-34.
[19] Mola-Caminal, M. et al. “PATJ Low Frequency Variants Are Associated With Worse Ischemic Stroke Functional Outcome.”Circ Res, vol. 124, no. 1, 2019, pp. 101-110, PMID: 30582445.
[20] Carty, C. L., et al. “Meta-Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies Identifies Genetic Risk Factors for Stroke in African Americans.”Stroke, 2015.
[21] Chauhan G et al. “Identification of additional risk loci for stroke and small vessel disease: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies.”Lancet Neurol, 2016.
[22] Verma, SS. et al. “Genome-wide association study of platelet reactivity and cardiovascular response in patients treated with clopidogrel: a study by the International Clopidogrel Pharmacogenomics Consortium (ICPC).”Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2020.
[23] Hinds, DA. et al. “Genome-wide association analysis of self-reported events in 6135 individuals and 252 827 controls identifies 8 loci associated with thrombosis.” Hum Mol Genet, 2016.