BACKGROUND Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Although Lp(a) is a genetically determined risk factor, the plasma proteomic features associated with Lp(a) and whether they provide information about ASCVD risk beyond Lp(a) concentration are not well characterized.OBJECTIVE We sought to identify plasma proteomic features associated with Lp(a) concentration and to evaluate whether an Lp(a)-associated proteomic signature is associated with ASCVD phenotypes in young, healthy adults.METHODS In the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, we measured year 7 Lp(a) and 184 cardiovascular proteins using the Olink proximity extension assay in 3,920 participants without prior coronary heart disease. Lp(a)-associated proteomic signatures were derived using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression in a split-sample design and tested for association with coronary artery calcification (CAC), incident coronary heart disease (CHD), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) over 27 years of follow-up. External replication was performed in the UK Biobank (n = 37,996).RESULTS Lp(a) was associated with CAC (OR 1.23 [1.13–1.34]; P < 0.0001) and incident CHD (HR 1.23 [1.07–1.41]; P = 0.004). Lp(a) was correlated with proteomic features reflecting immune activation, coagulation, and vascular dysfunction. A quantitative Lp(a)-associated proteomics score was independently associated with incident CAC (standardized β = 0.40, P < 0.0001) and hs-CRP (standardized β = 0.11, P = 0.00015) after adjustment for Lp(a) concentration. In the UK Biobank, a recalibrated Lp(a)-associated proteomics score was associated with CRP, incident CHD, and all-cause mortality.CONCLUSIONS In young adults, Lp(a) was associated with distinct proteomic features that independently predicted ASCVD phenotypes beyond Lp(a) concentration, generating hypotheses regarding biological pathways linked to Lp(a)-related cardiovascular risk.FUNDING VA MERIT grant (1I01CX002560); Taubman Medical Research Institute (Wolfe Scholarship); National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH (U01DK123013-03); National Institute on Aging (NIA), NIH (R01AG059729); National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH (R01HL136685); American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network grant in Cardiometabolic Disease (funded proteomics in CARDIA); NIH (K23MD017253 and R01HL167733); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation; A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute; National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR019628); National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), NIH (R35-GM124836). The CARDIA study was conducted and supported by the NHLBI in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (75N92023D00002 and 75N92023D00005), Northwestern University (75N92023D00004), University of Minnesota (75N92023D00006), and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute (75N92023D00003).ROLE OF FUNDING SOURCE The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Sascha N. Goonewardena, Shanshan Yao, Tomasz Jurga, Lanyue Zhang, Donald Lloyd-Jones, Dilna Damodaran, Bharat Thyagarajan, David R. Jacobs Jr., Supriya Shore, Eric J. Brandt, Clary Clish, Kahraman Tanriverdi, Jane E. Freedman, Chirag J. Patel, Mark A. Sarzynski, Brian T. Emmer, John T. Wilkins, Ron Do, Vera Bittner, Ravi V. Shah, Marios K. Georgakis, Robert S. Rosenson, Venkatesh L. Murthy
Usage data is cumulative from April 2026 through July 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 2,258 | 0 |
| 714 | 0 | |
| Figure | 310 | 0 |
| Table | 55 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 241 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 160 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,738 | 0 |
| Total Views | 3,738 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.