Literature DB >> 25995153

Explicit Modeling of Ancestry Improves Polygenic Risk Scores and BLUP Prediction.

Chia-Yen Chen1, Jiali Han1,2,3, David J Hunter1,2,4, Peter Kraft1,2,4,5, Alkes L Price1,4,5.   

Abstract

Polygenic prediction using genome-wide SNPs can provide high prediction accuracy for complex traits. Here, we investigate the question of how to account for genetic ancestry when conducting polygenic prediction. We show that the accuracy of polygenic prediction in structured populations may be partly due to genetic ancestry. However, we hypothesized that explicitly modeling ancestry could improve polygenic prediction accuracy. We analyzed three GWAS of hair color (HC), tanning ability (TA), and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in European Americans (sample size from 7,440 to 9,822) and considered two widely used polygenic prediction approaches: polygenic risk scores (PRSs) and best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP). We compared polygenic prediction without correction for ancestry to polygenic prediction with ancestry as a separate component in the model. In 10-fold cross-validation using the PRS approach, the R(2) for HC increased by 66% (0.0456-0.0755; P < 10(-16)), the R(2) for TA increased by 123% (0.0154 to 0.0344; P < 10(-16)), and the liability-scale R(2) for BCC increased by 68% (0.0138-0.0232; P < 10(-16)) when explicitly modeling ancestry, which prevents ancestry effects from entering into each SNP effect and being overweighted. Surprisingly, explicitly modeling ancestry produces a similar improvement when using the BLUP approach, which fits all SNPs simultaneously in a single variance component and causes ancestry to be underweighted. We validate our findings via simulations, which show that the differences in prediction accuracy will increase in magnitude as sample sizes increase. In summary, our results show that explicitly modeling ancestry can be important in both PRS and BLUP prediction.
© 2015 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  basal cell carcinoma; genome-wide association study; pigmentation; polygenic prediction; principal component analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25995153      PMCID: PMC4734143          DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21906

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Epidemiol        ISSN: 0741-0395            Impact factor:   2.135


  65 in total

1.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Genetic variants at 2q24 are associated with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Lu Qi; Marilyn C Cornelis; Peter Kraft; Kristopher J Stanya; W H Linda Kao; James S Pankow; Josée Dupuis; Jose C Florez; Caroline S Fox; Guillaume Paré; Qi Sun; Cynthia J Girman; Cathy C Laurie; Daniel B Mirel; Teri A Manolio; Daniel I Chasman; Eric Boerwinkle; Paul M Ridker; David J Hunter; James B Meigs; Chih-Hao Lee; Frank B Hu; Rob M van Dam
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 6.150

3.  Improved ancestry inference using weights from external reference panels.

Authors:  Chia-Yen Chen; Samuela Pollack; David J Hunter; Joel N Hirschhorn; Peter Kraft; Alkes L Price
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  Identification of risk loci with shared effects on five major psychiatric disorders: a genome-wide analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  Pitfalls of predicting complex traits from SNPs.

Authors:  Naomi R Wray; Jian Yang; Ben J Hayes; Alkes L Price; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  A comprehensive genetic approach for improving prediction of skin cancer risk in humans.

Authors:  Ana I Vazquez; Gustavo de los Campos; Yann C Klimentidis; Guilherme J M Rosa; Daniel Gianola; Nengjun Yi; David B Allison
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment.

Authors:  Cornelius A Rietveld; Sarah E Medland; Jaime Derringer; Jian Yang; Tõnu Esko; Nicolas W Martin; Harm-Jan Westra; Konstantin Shakhbazov; Abdel Abdellaoui; Arpana Agrawal; Eva Albrecht; Behrooz Z Alizadeh; Najaf Amin; John Barnard; Sebastian E Baumeister; Kelly S Benke; Lawrence F Bielak; Jeffrey A Boatman; Patricia A Boyle; Gail Davies; Christiaan de Leeuw; Niina Eklund; Daniel S Evans; Rudolf Ferhmann; Krista Fischer; Christian Gieger; Håkon K Gjessing; Sara Hägg; Jennifer R Harris; Caroline Hayward; Christina Holzapfel; Carla A Ibrahim-Verbaas; Erik Ingelsson; Bo Jacobsson; Peter K Joshi; Astanand Jugessur; Marika Kaakinen; Stavroula Kanoni; Juha Karjalainen; Ivana Kolcic; Kati Kristiansson; Zoltán Kutalik; Jari Lahti; Sang H Lee; Peng Lin; Penelope A Lind; Yongmei Liu; Kurt Lohman; Marisa Loitfelder; George McMahon; Pedro Marques Vidal; Osorio Meirelles; Lili Milani; Ronny Myhre; Marja-Liisa Nuotio; Christopher J Oldmeadow; Katja E Petrovic; Wouter J Peyrot; Ozren Polasek; Lydia Quaye; Eva Reinmaa; John P Rice; Thais S Rizzi; Helena Schmidt; Reinhold Schmidt; Albert V Smith; Jennifer A Smith; Toshiko Tanaka; Antonio Terracciano; Matthijs J H M van der Loos; Veronique Vitart; Henry Völzke; Jürgen Wellmann; Lei Yu; Wei Zhao; Jüri Allik; John R Attia; Stefania Bandinelli; François Bastardot; Jonathan Beauchamp; David A Bennett; Klaus Berger; Laura J Bierut; Dorret I Boomsma; Ute Bültmann; Harry Campbell; Christopher F Chabris; Lynn Cherkas; Mina K Chung; Francesco Cucca; Mariza de Andrade; Philip L De Jager; Jan-Emmanuel De Neve; Ian J Deary; George V Dedoussis; Panos Deloukas; Maria Dimitriou; Guðny Eiríksdóttir; Martin F Elderson; Johan G Eriksson; David M Evans; Jessica D Faul; Luigi Ferrucci; Melissa E Garcia; Henrik Grönberg; Vilmundur Guðnason; Per Hall; Juliette M Harris; Tamara B Harris; Nicholas D Hastie; Andrew C Heath; Dena G Hernandez; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Adriaan Hofman; Rolf Holle; Elizabeth G Holliday; Jouke-Jan Hottenga; William G Iacono; Thomas Illig; Marjo-Riitta Järvelin; Mika Kähönen; Jaakko Kaprio; Robert M Kirkpatrick; Matthew Kowgier; Antti Latvala; Lenore J Launer; Debbie A Lawlor; Terho Lehtimäki; Jingmei Li; Paul Lichtenstein; Peter Lichtner; David C Liewald; Pamela A Madden; Patrik K E Magnusson; Tomi E Mäkinen; Marco Masala; Matt McGue; Andres Metspalu; Andreas Mielck; Michael B Miller; Grant W Montgomery; Sutapa Mukherjee; Dale R Nyholt; Ben A Oostra; Lyle J Palmer; Aarno Palotie; Brenda W J H Penninx; Markus Perola; Patricia A Peyser; Martin Preisig; Katri Räikkönen; Olli T Raitakari; Anu Realo; Susan M Ring; Samuli Ripatti; Fernando Rivadeneira; Igor Rudan; Aldo Rustichini; Veikko Salomaa; Antti-Pekka Sarin; David Schlessinger; Rodney J Scott; Harold Snieder; Beate St Pourcain; John M Starr; Jae Hoon Sul; Ida Surakka; Rauli Svento; Alexander Teumer; Henning Tiemeier; Frank J A van Rooij; David R Van Wagoner; Erkki Vartiainen; Jorma Viikari; Peter Vollenweider; Judith M Vonk; Gérard Waeber; David R Weir; H-Erich Wichmann; Elisabeth Widen; Gonneke Willemsen; James F Wilson; Alan F Wright; Dalton Conley; George Davey-Smith; Lude Franke; Patrick J F Groenen; Albert Hofman; Magnus Johannesson; Sharon L R Kardia; Robert F Krueger; David Laibson; Nicholas G Martin; Michelle N Meyer; Danielle Posthuma; A Roy Thurik; Nicholas J Timpson; André G Uitterlinden; Cornelia M van Duijn; Peter M Visscher; Daniel J Benjamin; David Cesarini; Philipp D Koellinger
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Polygenic modeling with bayesian sparse linear mixed models.

Authors:  Xiang Zhou; Peter Carbonetto; Matthew Stephens
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 5.917

9.  Projecting the performance of risk prediction based on polygenic analyses of genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Nilanjan Chatterjee; Bill Wheeler; Joshua Sampson; Patricia Hartge; Stephen J Chanock; Ju-Hyun Park
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  Power and predictive accuracy of polygenic risk scores.

Authors:  Frank Dudbridge
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Predicting Polygenic Risk of Psychiatric Disorders.

Authors:  Alicia R Martin; Mark J Daly; Elise B Robinson; Steven E Hyman; Benjamin M Neale
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 13.382

Review 2.  Polygenic Risk Scores in Clinical Psychology: Bridging Genomic Risk to Individual Differences.

Authors:  Ryan Bogdan; David A A Baranger; Arpana Agrawal
Journal:  Annu Rev Clin Psychol       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 18.561

3.  Localizing Components of Shared Transethnic Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits from GWAS Summary Data.

Authors:  Huwenbo Shi; Kathryn S Burch; Ruth Johnson; Malika K Freund; Gleb Kichaev; Nicholas Mancuso; Astrid M Manuel; Natalie Dong; Bogdan Pasaniuc
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Polygenic transcriptome risk scores for COPD and lung function improve cross-ethnic portability of prediction in the NHLBI TOPMed program.

Authors:  Xiaowei Hu; Dandi Qiao; Wonji Kim; Matthew Moll; Pallavi P Balte; Leslie A Lange; Traci M Bartz; Rajesh Kumar; Xingnan Li; Bing Yu; Brian E Cade; Cecelia A Laurie; Tamar Sofer; Ingo Ruczinski; Deborah A Nickerson; Donna M Muzny; Ginger A Metcalf; Harshavardhan Doddapaneni; Stacy Gabriel; Namrata Gupta; Shannon Dugan-Perez; L Adrienne Cupples; Laura R Loehr; Deepti Jain; Jerome I Rotter; James G Wilson; Bruce M Psaty; Myriam Fornage; Alanna C Morrison; Ramachandran S Vasan; George Washko; Stephen S Rich; George T O'Connor; Eugene Bleecker; Robert C Kaplan; Ravi Kalhan; Susan Redline; Sina A Gharib; Deborah Meyers; Victor Ortega; Josée Dupuis; Stephanie J London; Tuuli Lappalainen; Elizabeth C Oelsner; Edwin K Silverman; R Graham Barr; Timothy A Thornton; Heather E Wheeler; Michael H Cho; Hae Kyung Im; Ani Manichaikul
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 11.043

5.  Comparative genetic architectures of schizophrenia in East Asian and European populations.

Authors:  Max Lam; Chia-Yen Chen; Zhiqiang Li; Alicia R Martin; Julien Bryois; Xixian Ma; Helena Gaspar; Masashi Ikeda; Beben Benyamin; Brielin C Brown; Ruize Liu; Wei Zhou; Lili Guan; Yoichiro Kamatani; Sung-Wan Kim; Michiaki Kubo; Agung A A A Kusumawardhani; Chih-Min Liu; Hong Ma; Sathish Periyasamy; Atsushi Takahashi; Zhida Xu; Hao Yu; Feng Zhu; Wei J Chen; Stephen Faraone; Stephen J Glatt; Lin He; Steven E Hyman; Hai-Gwo Hwu; Steven A McCarroll; Benjamin M Neale; Pamela Sklar; Dieter B Wildenauer; Xin Yu; Dai Zhang; Bryan J Mowry; Jimmy Lee; Peter Holmans; Shuhua Xu; Patrick F Sullivan; Stephan Ripke; Michael C O'Donovan; Mark J Daly; Shengying Qin; Pak Sham; Nakao Iwata; Kyung S Hong; Sibylle G Schwab; Weihua Yue; Ming Tsuang; Jianjun Liu; Xiancang Ma; René S Kahn; Yongyong Shi; Hailiang Huang
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  Two-Variance-Component Model Improves Genetic Prediction in Family Datasets.

Authors:  George Tucker; Po-Ru Loh; Iona M MacLeod; Ben J Hayes; Michael E Goddard; Bonnie Berger; Alkes L Price
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Modeling Linkage Disequilibrium Increases Accuracy of Polygenic Risk Scores.

Authors:  Bjarni J Vilhjálmsson; Jian Yang; Hilary K Finucane; Alexander Gusev; Sara Lindström; Stephan Ripke; Giulio Genovese; Po-Ru Loh; Gaurav Bhatia; Ron Do; Tristan Hayeck; Hong-Hee Won; Sekar Kathiresan; Michele Pato; Carlos Pato; Rulla Tamimi; Eli Stahl; Noah Zaitlen; Bogdan Pasaniuc; Gillian Belbin; Eimear E Kenny; Mikkel H Schierup; Philip De Jager; Nikolaos A Patsopoulos; Steve McCarroll; Mark Daly; Shaun Purcell; Daniel Chasman; Benjamin Neale; Michael Goddard; Peter M Visscher; Peter Kraft; Nick Patterson; Alkes L Price
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Highly elevated polygenic risk scores are better predictors of myocardial infarction risk early in life than later.

Authors:  Monica Isgut; Jimeng Sun; Arshed A Quyyumi; Greg Gibson
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 11.117

9.  Multiethnic polygenic risk scores improve risk prediction in diverse populations.

Authors:  Carla Márquez-Luna; Po-Ru Loh; Alkes L Price
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 2.135

10.  A machine-learning heuristic to improve gene score prediction of polygenic traits.

Authors:  Guillaume Paré; Shihong Mao; Wei Q Deng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.