Search

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) aggregate the effects of genetic variants across the genome and are used to predict risk of complex diseases, such as obesity. Current PRSs only include common variants (minor allele frequency (MAF) ≥1%), whereas the contribution of rare variants in PRSs to predict disease remains unknown. Here, we examine whether augmenting the standard common variant PRS (PRScommon) with a rare variant PRS (PRSrare) improves prediction of obesity. We used genome-wide genotyped and imputed data on 451,145 European-ancestry participants of the UK Biobank, as well as whole exome sequencing (WES) data on 184,385 participants. We performed single variant analyses (for both common and rare variants) and gene-based analyses (for rare variants) for association with BMI (kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), and extreme obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). We built PRSscommon and PRSsrare using a range of methods (Clumping+Thresholding [C+T], PRS-CS, lassosum, gene-burden test). We selected the best-performing PRSs and assessed their performance in 36,757 European-ancestry unrelated participants with whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program. The best-performing PRScommon explained 10.1% of variation in BMI, and 18.3% and 22.5% of the susceptibility to obesity and extreme obesity, respectively, whereas the best-performing PRSrare explained 1.49%, and 2.97% and 3.68%, respectively. The PRSrare was associated with an increased risk of obesity and extreme obesity (ORobesity = 1.37 per SDPRS, Pobesity = 1.7x10-85; ORextremeobesity = 1.55 per SDPRS, Pextremeobesity = 3.8x10-40), which was attenuated, after adjusting for PRScommon (ORobesity = 1.08 per SDPRS, Pobesity = 9.8x10-6; ORextremeobesity= 1.09 per SDPRS, Pextremeobesity = 0.02). When PRSrare and PRScommon are combined, the increase in explained variance attributed to PRSrare was small (incremental Nagelkerke R2 = 0.24% for obesity and 0.51% for extreme obesity). Consistently, combining PRSrare to PRScommon provided little improvement to the prediction of obesity (PRSrare AUC = 0.591; PRScommon AUC = 0.708; PRScombined AUC = 0.710). In summary, while rare variants show convincing association with BMI, obesity and extreme obesity, the PRSrare provides limited improvement over PRScommon in the prediction of obesity risk, based on these large populations.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) aggregate the effects of genetic variants across the genome and are used to predict risk of complex diseases, such as obesity. Current PRSs only include common variants (minor allele frequency (MAF) ≥1%), whereas the contribution of rare variants in PRSs to predict disease remains unknown. Here, we examine whether augmenting the standard common variant PRS (PRScommon) with a rare variant PRS (PRSrare) improves prediction of obesity. We used genome-wide genotyped and imputed data on 451,145 European-ancestry participants of the UK Biobank, as well as whole exome sequencing (WES) data on 184,385 participants. We performed single variant analyses (for both common and rare variants) and gene-based analyses (for rare variants) for association with BMI (kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), and extreme obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). We built PRSscommon and PRSsrare using a range of methods (Clumping+Thresholding [C+T], PRS-CS, lassosum, gene-burden test). We selected the best-performing PRSs and assessed their performance in 36,757 European-ancestry unrelated participants with whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program. The best-performing PRScommon explained 10.1% of variation in BMI, and 18.3% and 22.5% of the susceptibility to obesity and extreme obesity, respectively, whereas the best-performing PRSrare explained 1.49%, and 2.97% and 3.68%, respectively. The PRSrare was associated with an increased risk of obesity and extreme obesity (ORobesity = 1.37 per SDPRS, Pobesity = 1.7x10-85; ORextremeobesity = 1.55 per SDPRS, Pextremeobesity = 3.8x10-40), which was attenuated, after adjusting for PRScommon (ORobesity = 1.08 per SDPRS, Pobesity = 9.8x10-6; ORextremeobesity= 1.09 per SDPRS, Pextremeobesity = 0.02). When PRSrare and PRScommon are combined, the increase in explained variance attributed to PRSrare was small (incremental Nagelkerke R2 = 0.24% for obesity and 0.51% for extreme obesity). Consistently, combining PRSrare to PRScommon provided little improvement to the prediction of obesity (PRSrare AUC = 0.591; PRScommon AUC = 0.708; PRScombined AUC = 0.710). In summary, while rare variants show convincing association with BMI, obesity and extreme obesity, the PRSrare provides limited improvement over PRScommon in the prediction of obesity risk, based on these large populations.

Summary: Polygenic scores (PGS) are commonly evaluated in terms of their predictive accuracy at the population level by the proportion of phenotypic variance they explain. To be useful for precision medicine applications, they also need to be evaluated at the individual level when phenotypes are not necessarily already known. We investigated the stability of PGS in European American (EUR) and African American (AFR)-ancestry individuals from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort and the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study using different discovery genome-wide association study (GWAS) results for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and height. We found that pairs of EUR-ancestry GWAS for the same trait had genetic correlations >0.92. However, PGS calculated from pairs of same-ancestry and different-ancestry GWAS had correlations that ranged from

Polygenic scores (PGSs), which assess the genetic risk of individuals for a disease, are calculated as a weighted count of risk alleles identified in genome-wide association studies. PGS methods differ in which DNA variants are included and the weights assigned to them; some require an independent tuning sample to help inform these choices. PGSs are evaluated in independent target cohorts with known disease status. Variability between target cohorts is observed in applications to real data sets, which could reflect a number of factors, e.g., phenotype definition or technical factors. The Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Working Groups for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder bring together many independently collected case-control cohorts. We used these resources (31,328 schizophrenia cases, 41,191 controls; 248,750 major depressive disorder cases, 563,184 controls) in repeated application of leave-one-cohort-out meta-analyses, each used to calculate and evaluate PGS in the left-out (target) cohort. Ten PGS methods (the baseline PC+T method and 9 methods that model genetic architecture more formally: SBLUP, LDpred2-Inf, LDpred-funct, LDpred2, Lassosum, PRS-CS, PRS-CS-auto, SBayesR, MegaPRS) were compared. Compared with PC+T, the other 9 methods gave higher prediction statistics, MegaPRS, LDPred2, and SBayesR significantly so, explaining up to 9.2% variance in liability for schizophrenia across 30 target cohorts, an increase of 44%. For major depressive disorder across 26 target cohorts, these statistics were 3.5% and 59%, respectively. Although the methods that more formally model genetic architecture have similar performance, MegaPRS, LDpred2, and SBayesR rank highest in most comparisons and are recommended in applications to psychiatric disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genome-wide association studies have identified nearly 40 genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which are associated with Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Due to the polygenicity of AD, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have shown high potential for AD risk prediction. PRSs have been shown to successfully discriminate between AD cases and controls achieving a prediction accuracy of up to 84% based on area under the receiver operating curve. The prediction accuracy in AD is higher compared with other complex genetic disorders. PRS can be restricted to SNPs which reside in biologically relevant gene-sets; the predictive value of these gene-sets in the general population is not as high as genome-wide PRS, but they may play an important role to identify mechanisms of disease development and inform biological experiments. Multiple methods are available to derive PRSs, such as selecting SNPs based on statistical evidence of association with the disease or using prior evidence for SNP selection. All methods have advantages, but PRS produced using different methodologies are often not comparable, and results should be interpreted with care. Similarly, this is true when PRS is based on different background populations. With the exponential growth in development of digital electronic devices it is easy to calculate an individual's disease risk using public databases. A major limitation for the utility of PRSs is that the risk score is sample and method dependent. Therefore, replicability and interpretability of PRS is an important issue. PRS can be used to determine the probability of developing disease which incorporates information about disease risk in the general population or in a specific AD risk group. It is essential to consult with genetic counselors to ensure genetic risk is communicated appropriately.