David Curtis1,2. 1. UCL Genetics Institute, University College London. 2. Centre for Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The polygenic risk score (PRS) for schizophrenia, derived from very large numbers of weakly associated genetic markers, has been repeatedly shown to be robustly associated with schizophrenia in independent samples and also with other diseases and traits. AIM: This study aims to explore the distribution of the schizophrenia PRS in subjects of different ancestry. METHODS: The schizophrenia PRS derived from the large genome-wide association study carried out by the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium was calculated using the downloaded genotypes of HapMap subjects from 11 different ancestral groups. It was also calculated using downloaded genotypes of European schizophrenia cases and controls from the CommonMind Consortium. RESULTS: The PRS for schizophrenia varied significantly between ancestral groups (P<2×10(-16)) and was much higher in African than European HapMap subjects. The mean difference between these groups was 10 times as high as the mean difference between European schizophrenia cases and controls. The distributions of scores for African and European subjects hardly overlapped. CONCLUSION: The PRS cannot be regarded as simply a measure of the polygenic contribution to risk of schizophrenia and clearly contains a strong ancestry component. It is possible that this could be controlled to some extent by incorporating principal components as covariates, but doubts remain as to how it should be interpreted. The PRS derived from European subjects cannot be applied to non-Europeans, limiting its potential usefulness in clinical settings and raising issues of inequity in health provision. Previous studies that have used the PRS should be re-examined in the light of these findings.
BACKGROUND: The polygenic risk score (PRS) for schizophrenia, derived from very large numbers of weakly associated genetic markers, has been repeatedly shown to be robustly associated with schizophrenia in independent samples and also with other diseases and traits. AIM: This study aims to explore the distribution of the schizophrenia PRS in subjects of different ancestry. METHODS: The schizophrenia PRS derived from the large genome-wide association study carried out by the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium was calculated using the downloaded genotypes of HapMap subjects from 11 different ancestral groups. It was also calculated using downloaded genotypes of European schizophrenia cases and controls from the CommonMind Consortium. RESULTS: The PRS for schizophrenia varied significantly between ancestral groups (P<2×10(-16)) and was much higher in African than European HapMap subjects. The mean difference between these groups was 10 times as high as the mean difference between European schizophrenia cases and controls. The distributions of scores for African and European subjects hardly overlapped. CONCLUSION: The PRS cannot be regarded as simply a measure of the polygenic contribution to risk of schizophrenia and clearly contains a strong ancestry component. It is possible that this could be controlled to some extent by incorporating principal components as covariates, but doubts remain as to how it should be interpreted. The PRS derived from European subjects cannot be applied to non-Europeans, limiting its potential usefulness in clinical settings and raising issues of inequity in health provision. Previous studies that have used the PRS should be re-examined in the light of these findings.
Authors: Sini Kerminen; Alicia R Martin; Jukka Koskela; Sanni E Ruotsalainen; Aki S Havulinna; Ida Surakka; Aarno Palotie; Markus Perola; Veikko Salomaa; Mark J Daly; Samuli Ripatti; Matti Pirinen Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Amanda K Tilot; Arianna Vino; Katerina S Kucera; Duncan A Carmichael; Loes van den Heuvel; Joery den Hoed; Anton V Sidoroff-Dorso; Archie Campbell; David J Porteous; Beate St Pourcain; Tessa M van Leeuwen; Jamie Ward; Romke Rouw; Julia Simner; Simon E Fisher Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Yoonjung Yoonie Joo; Ky'Era Actkins; Jennifer A Pacheco; Anna O Basile; Robert Carroll; David R Crosslin; Felix Day; Joshua C Denny; Digna R Velez Edwards; Hakon Hakonarson; John B Harley; Scott J Hebbring; Kevin Ho; Gail P Jarvik; Michelle Jones; Tugce Karaderi; Frank D Mentch; Cindy Meun; Bahram Namjou; Sarah Pendergrass; Marylyn D Ritchie; Ian B Stanaway; Margrit Urbanek; Theresa L Walunas; Maureen Smith; Rex L Chisholm; Abel N Kho; Lea Davis; M Geoffrey Hayes Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Lotta-Katrin Pries; Agustin Lage-Castellanos; Philippe Delespaul; Gunter Kenis; Jurjen J Luykx; Bochao D Lin; Alexander L Richards; Berna Akdede; Tolga Binbay; Vesile Altinyazar; Berna Yalinçetin; Güvem Gümüş-Akay; Burçin Cihan; Haldun Soygür; Halis Ulaş; Eylem Şahin Cankurtaran; Semra Ulusoy Kaymak; Marina M Mihaljevic; Sanja Andric Petrovic; Tijana Mirjanic; Miguel Bernardo; Bibiana Cabrera; Julio Bobes; Pilar A Saiz; María Paz García-Portilla; Julio Sanjuan; Eduardo J Aguilar; José Luis Santos; Estela Jiménez-López; Manuel Arrojo; Angel Carracedo; Gonzalo López; Javier González-Peñas; Mara Parellada; Nadja P Maric; Cem Atbaşoğlu; Alp Ucok; Köksal Alptekin; Meram Can Saka; Celso Arango; Michael O'Donovan; Bart P F Rutten; Jim van Os; Sinan Guloksuz Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 9.306