Roseann E Peterson1, Alexis C Edwards1, Silviu-Alin Bacanu1, Danielle M Dick2,3, Kenneth S Kendler1, Bradley T Webb1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 2. Departments of Psychology, African American Studies, and Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. College Behavioral and Emotional Health Institute, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Given moderate heritability and significant heterogeneity among addiction phenotypes, successful genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are expected to need very large samples. As sample sizes grow, so can genetic diversity leading to challenges in analyzing these data. Methods for empirically assigning individuals to genetically informed ancestry groups are needed. METHODS: We describe a strategy for empirically assigning ancestry groups in ethnically diverse GWAS data including extensions of principal component analysis (PCA) and population matching through minimum Mahalanobis distance. We apply these methods to data from Spit for Science (S4S): the University Student Survey, a study following college students longitudinally that includes genetic and environmental data on substance use and mental health (n = 7,603). RESULTS: The genetic-based population assignments for S4S were 48.7% European, 22.5% African, 10.4% Americas, 9.2% East Asian, and 9.2% South Asian descent. Self-reported census categories "More than one race" and "Unknown"as well as "Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and "American-Indian/Native Alaskan" were empirically assigned representing a +9% sample retention over conventional methods. Although there was high concordance between self-reported race and empirical population-match (+.924), there was reduction in variance for most ancestry PCs for genetic-based population assignments. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to create more genetically homogenous groups and reduce sample and marker loss through cross-ancestry meta-analysis, potentially increasing power to detect etiologically relevant variation. Our approach provides a framework for empirically assigning genetic ancestry groups which can be applied to other ethnically diverse genetic studies. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Given the important public health impact and demonstrable gains in statistical power from studying diverse populations, empirically sound practices for genetic studies are needed. (Am J Addict 2017;26:494-501).
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Given moderate heritability and significant heterogeneity among addiction phenotypes, successful genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are expected to need very large samples. As sample sizes grow, so can genetic diversity leading to challenges in analyzing these data. Methods for empirically assigning individuals to genetically informed ancestry groups are needed. METHODS: We describe a strategy for empirically assigning ancestry groups in ethnically diverse GWAS data including extensions of principal component analysis (PCA) and population matching through minimum Mahalanobis distance. We apply these methods to data from Spit for Science (S4S): the University Student Survey, a study following college students longitudinally that includes genetic and environmental data on substance use and mental health (n = 7,603). RESULTS: The genetic-based population assignments for S4S were 48.7% European, 22.5% African, 10.4% Americas, 9.2% East Asian, and 9.2% South Asian descent. Self-reported census categories "More than one race" and "Unknown"as well as "Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and "American-Indian/Native Alaskan" were empirically assigned representing a +9% sample retention over conventional methods. Although there was high concordance between self-reported race and empirical population-match (+.924), there was reduction in variance for most ancestry PCs for genetic-based population assignments. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to create more genetically homogenous groups and reduce sample and marker loss through cross-ancestry meta-analysis, potentially increasing power to detect etiologically relevant variation. Our approach provides a framework for empirically assigning genetic ancestry groups which can be applied to other ethnically diverse genetic studies. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Given the important public health impact and demonstrable gains in statistical power from studying diverse populations, empirically sound practices for genetic studies are needed. (Am J Addict 2017;26:494-501).
Authors: Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Christopher C Chang; Carson C Chow; Laurent Cam Tellier; Shashaank Vattikuti; Shaun M Purcell; James J Lee Journal: Gigascience Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 6.524
Authors: Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Erik P Garrison; Hyun Min Kang; Jan O Korbel; Jonathan L Marchini; Shane McCarthy; Gil A McVean; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Nature Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Rebecca L Smith; Jessica E Salvatore; Fazil Aliev; Zoe Neale; Peter Barr; Danielle M Dick Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Sage E Hawn; Christina M Sheerin; Bradley T Webb; Roseann E Peterson; Elizabeth K Do; Danielle Dick; Kenneth S Kendler; Silviu-Alin Bacanu; Ananda B Amstadter Journal: J Trauma Stress Date: 2018-10-30
Authors: Peter B Barr; Jessica E Salvatore; Leah Wetherill; Andrey Anokhin; Grace Chan; Howard J Edenberg; Samuel Kuperman; Jacquelyn Meyers; John Nurnberger; Bernice Porjesz; Mark Schuckit; Danielle M Dick Journal: Behav Genet Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 2.805
Authors: Roseann E Peterson; Karoline Kuchenbaecker; Raymond K Walters; Chia-Yen Chen; Alice B Popejoy; Sathish Periyasamy; Max Lam; Conrad Iyegbe; Rona J Strawbridge; Leslie Brick; Caitlin E Carey; Alicia R Martin; Jacquelyn L Meyers; Jinni Su; Junfang Chen; Alexis C Edwards; Allan Kalungi; Nastassja Koen; Lerato Majara; Emanuel Schwarz; Jordan W Smoller; Eli A Stahl; Patrick F Sullivan; Evangelos Vassos; Bryan Mowry; Miguel L Prieto; Alfredo Cuellar-Barboza; Tim B Bigdeli; Howard J Edenberg; Hailiang Huang; Laramie E Duncan Journal: Cell Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Alexis C Edwards; Joseph D Deak; Ian R Gizer; Dongbing Lai; Chris Chatzinakos; Kirk P Wilhelmsen; Jonathan Lindsay; Jon Heron; Matthew Hickman; Bradley T Webb; Silviu-Alin Bacanu; Tatiana M Foroud; Kenneth S Kendler; Danielle M Dick; Marc A Schuckit Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2018-10-28 Impact factor: 3.455