
Novel Genetic Variant May Drive MASLD
A novel genetic variant may be a driving force behind the development of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in some cases, according to researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
In an article published in Hepatology , Filippo Pinto e Vairo, MD, PhD, and colleagues described their discovery of a single inherited variant of the mesenchymal-epithelial transition ( MET ) gene in a familial case of MASLD involving a father and daughter with no apparent additional risk factors.
MASLD remains one of the world's most common diseases and will likely become the leading cause of liver cirrhosis worldwide, the researchers wrote. MASLD, formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), likely stems from a combination of genetic and environmental factors, they said.
Their discovery of the gene variation prompted the researchers to investigate whether that variation and others on the MET gene were linked to steatotic liver disease.
They used Mayo Clinic's Tapestry study, a large-scale genetic sequencing project, to analyze the exome sequencing data of 3904 adults with MASLD to identify other cases and analyze them. About 1% (45 individuals) had rare variants of the MET gene potentially associated with MASLD, and 8 of the 45 (18%) had genetic variants in the same area as the index patient and her father.
Pinto e Vairo, medical director of the Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases in the Mayo Clinic's Center for Individualized Medicine, explained the potential implications of the findings in a Q&A with Medscape Medical News .
What prompted you to conduct this research? How did you identify the original patient?
Pinto e Vairo: The original patient was identified through clinical care and underwent liver biopsy due to elevated liver enzymes. Her histology confirmed MASH [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis], and subsequent exome sequencing revealed a novel heterozygous MET variant, inherited from her affected father, which led to a deeper investigation into the genetic basis of her condition.
Were you surprised by any of the findings? Why or why not?
Pinto e Vairo: The findings were surprising in several ways. First, variants in MET had not previously been implicated as a germline monogenic cause of MASLD or MASH in humans. Its known roles had largely been confined to cancer. Second, the discovery that rare, loss-of-function variants in the MET kinase domain could underlie liver steatosis and inflammation ran counter to the usual oncogenic MET variants, which are typically gain-of-function.
The confirmation that the MET variants impaired downstream signaling further reinforced a novel mechanism. The lack of high polygenic risk scores in patients with these MET variants also highlighted that monogenic drivers might be underrecognized contributors to MASLD/MASH.
Based on your research and other research, how might genetics play into MASLD?
Pinto e Vairo: Genetics play a significant role in MASLD by modulating both susceptibility and disease progression. While large-scale genome-wide association studies have identified common variants — such as those in PNPLA3 , TM6SF2 , GCKR , MBOAT7 , and HSD17B13 — that confer risk or protection, this study adds evidence that rare monogenic variants can also independently drive the disease.
This suggests a genetic spectrum in MASLD, ranging from polygenic, environmentally modulated forms to monogenic cases with high penetrance. The interplay between these rare variants and broader metabolic context will be crucial to understand personalized risk.
Is there a practical application for this research now? What might the future clinical applications be?
Pinto e Vairo: The immediate practical application lies in the potential for early identification of individuals at high risk for MASLD/MASH through exome or genome sequencing, particularly in families with a strong history of liver disease. Clinically, this could justify enhanced surveillance or earlier lifestyle and therapeutic interventions in at-risk individuals.
In the future, this research may support the development of targeted therapies that can restore or bypass defective MET signaling. Moreover, it opens the door to personalized medicine strategies that consider a patient's unique genetic profile when choosing interventions or preventive strategies.
What are the next steps?
Pinto e Vairo: The next steps include functional validation of other rare MET variants to better understand their pathogenic potential and variability in phenotypic expression; longitudinal cohort studies to monitor disease progression in individuals with MET variants and to define genotype-phenotype correlations more precisely; and ultimately therapeutic exploration, including in vitro and in vivo modeling, to determine whether restoring MET signaling could reverse or mitigate disease.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


E&E News
9 minutes ago
- E&E News
Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May
Climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere broke another record last month, breaching 430 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, whose researchers track atmospheric CO2, publicly announced the findings Thursday morning. NOAA announced the findings in social media posts on X and Facebook, linking to the public data on its website. The agency also typically reveals the annual CO2 in a news release, like last year's announcement, but hadn't done so as of 12:30 p.m. ET on Thursday. Advertisement Kim Doster, NOAA's director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
UnitedHealthcare accused The Guardian of looking to ‘capitalize' on CEO's murder in lawsuit
UnitedHealthcare sued The Guardian and its parent on Wednesday for defamation, claiming the US version of the British daily newspaper ran information it knew to be incorrect in order to 'capitalize' on the assassination of the medical insurer's CEO. The article in question was produced and published by The Guardian's US investigations team as part of a series titled 'Too Big to Care' and was available worldwide at publication. In the article, George Joseph, an investigative reporter for The Guardian's US publication, wrote that UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare's parent, had engaged in cost-cutting tactics by paying off nurses to cut down on hospital transfers. Citing internal emails, documents and interviews with more than 20 current and former staffers, the report claimed that the payments were made 'as part of a UnitedHealth program.' Nursing home residents in need of 'immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it' because of 'interventions from UnitedHealth staffers,' per the report. The lawsuit from UnitedHealth Group, United Healthcare Services and Optum, the group's health services segment, filed in Delaware's Superior Court, accused The Guardian of publishing 'knowingly false claims' in the story, alleging it used 'deceptively doctored documents' and 'patently untruthful anecdotes' to produce the article. 'The Guardian knew these accusations were false, but published them anyway, brazenly trying to capitalize on the tragic and shocking assassination of UnitedHealthcare's then-CEO, Brian Thompson,' the lawsuit alleged. The Guardian is strongly pushing back against UnitedHealthcare's lawsuit, emphasizing in a statement that it will defend Joseph's reporting. 'The Guardian stands by its deeply-sourced, independent reporting, which is based on thousands of corporate and patient records, publicly filed lawsuits, declarations submitted to federal and state agencies, and interviews with more than 20 current and former UnitedHealth employees — as well as statements and information provided by UnitedHealth itself over several weeks,' The Guardian said in a statement. 'It's outrageous that in response to factual reporting on the practice of secretly paying nursing homes to reduce hospitalizations for vulnerable patients, UnitedHealth is resorting to wildly misleading claims and intimidation tactics via the courts,' the publication said. The health care giant's accusations echo a statement published by UnitedHealth Group the same day The Guardian released its investigation. In the statement, the company accused the publication of building a 'narrative' using 'anecdotes rather than facts.' The company noted that the Justice Department had investigated the allegations, interviewed witnesses, and combed through thousands of documents, only to find 'the significant factual inaccuracies in the allegations.' A UnitedHealth Group spokesperson told CNN that The Guardian 'refused to engage with the truth and chose instead to print its predetermined narrative.' 'The Guardian knowingly published false and misleading claims about our Institutional Special Needs Program, forcing us to take action to protect the clinician-patient relationship that is crucial for delivering high-quality care,' the company said in a statement. However, despite the claim, a spokesperson for The Guardian told CNN that it has 'received no requests for correction or retraction on any aspect of the story.' UnitedHealthcare is being represented by Clare Locke, a law firm known for taking on defamation cases against media organizations. The firm has also represented Project Veritas; and one of its partners, Jered Ede, who is working on the UnitedHealthcare lawsuit, was also Project Veritas's chief legal officer.

Wall Street Journal
13 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?