Individuals with common diseases but with a low polygenic risk score could be prioritized for rare variant screening.
exome sequencing
patient prioritization
polygenic risk scores
rare variants
risk stratification
Journal
Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
ISSN: 1530-0366
Titre abrégé: Genet Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9815831
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
02
06
2020
accepted:
05
10
2020
pubmed:
29
10
2020
medline:
4
6
2021
entrez:
28
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Identifying rare genetic causes of common diseases can improve diagnostic and treatment strategies, but incurs high costs. We tested whether individuals with common disease and low polygenic risk score (PRS) for that disease generated from less expensive genome-wide genotyping data are more likely to carry rare pathogenic variants. We identified patients with one of five common complex diseases among 44,550 individuals who underwent exome sequencing in the UK Biobank. We derived PRS for these five diseases, and identified pathogenic rare variant heterozygotes. We tested whether individuals with disease and low PRS were more likely to carry rare pathogenic variants. While rare pathogenic variants conferred, at most, 5.18-fold (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.32-10.13) increased odds of disease, a standard deviation increase in PRS, at most, increased the odds of disease by 5.25-fold (95% CI: 5.06-5.45). Among diseased patients, a standard deviation decrease in the PRS was associated with, at most, 2.82-fold (95% CI: 1.14-7.46) increased odds of identifying rare variant heterozygotes. Rare pathogenic variants were more prevalent among affected patients with a low PRS. Therefore, prioritizing individuals for sequencing who have disease but low PRS may increase the yield of sequencing studies to identify rare variant heterozygotes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33110269
doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-01007-7
pii: S1098-3600(21)04947-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
508-515Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_17228
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_QA137853
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : CIHR
Pays : Canada
Références
Visscher PM, et al. 10 years of GWAS discovery: biology, function, and translation. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;101:5–22.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.005
Bomba L, Walter K, Soranzo N. The impact of rare and low-frequency genetic variants in common disease. Genome Biol. 2017;18:77.
doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1212-4
Esplin ED, Oei L, Snyder MP. Personalized sequencing and the future of medicine: discovery, diagnosis and defeat of disease. Pharmacogenomics. 2014;15:1771–1790.
doi: 10.2217/pgs.14.117
Shepherd M, et al. A genetic diagnosis of HNF1A diabetes alters treatment and improves glycaemic control in the majority of insulin-treated patients. Diabet Med. 2009;26:437–441.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02690.x
Khera AV, et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1219–1224.
doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z
Inouye M, et al. Genomic risk prediction of coronary artery disease in 480,000 adults: implications for primary prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:1883–1893.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.079
Mars N, et al. Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers. Nat Med. 2020;26:549–557.
doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0800-0
Pavan S, et al. Recommendations for choosing the genotyping method and best practices for quality control in crop genome-wide association studies. Front Genet. 2020;11:447.
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00447
Bycroft C, et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature. 2018;562:203–209.
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0579-z
Nagai A, et al. Overview of the BioBank Japan Project: study design and profile. J Epidemiol. 2017;27:S2–S8.
doi: 10.1016/j.je.2016.12.005
Chen Z, et al. China Kadoorie Biobank of 0.5 million people: survey methods, baseline characteristics and long-term follow-up. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:1652–1666.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr120
Fry A, et al. Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with those of the general population. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186:1026–1034.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx246
Yengo L, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for height and body mass index in approximately 700000 individuals of European ancestry. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27:3641–3649.
doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddy271
Ranke MB. Towards a consensus on the definition of idiopathic short stature. Horm Res. 1996;45:64–66.
doi: 10.1159/000184851
Kalia SS, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2017;19:249–255.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.190
Misra S, Owen KR. Genetics of monogenic diabetes: present clinical challenges. Curr Diab Rep. 2018;18:141.
doi: 10.1007/s11892-018-1111-4
Makitie RE, et al. New insights into monogenic causes of osteoporosis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:70.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00070
Rappold G, et al. Genotypes and phenotypes in children with short stature: clinical indicators of SHOX haploinsufficiency. J Med Genet. 2007;44:306–313.
doi: 10.1136/jmg.2006.046581
Grunauer M, Jorge AAL. Genetic short stature. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2018;38:29–33.
doi: 10.1016/j.ghir.2017.12.003
Cingolani P, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin). 2012;6:80–92.
doi: 10.4161/fly.19695
Rentzsch P, et al. CADD: predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D886–D894.
doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1016
Mavaddat N, et al. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;104:21–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002
Njeh CF, et al. Assessment of bone status using speed of sound at multiple anatomical sites. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:1337–1345.
doi: 10.1016/S0301-5629(01)00437-9
Forgetta V, et al. Development of a polygenic risk score to improve screening for fracture risk: a genetic risk prediction study. PLoS Med. 2020;17:e1003152.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003152
Wood AR, et al. Defining the role of common variation in the genomic and biological architecture of adult human height. Nat Genet. 2014;46:1173–1186.
doi: 10.1038/ng.3097
Vilhjalmsson BJ, et al. Modeling linkage disequilibrium increases accuracy of polygenic risk scores. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;97:576–592.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.09.001
Weigl K, et al. Genetic risk score is associated with prevalence of advanced neoplasms in a colorectal cancer screening population. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:88–98 e10.
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.030
Dudbridge F. Power and predictive accuracy of polygenic risk scores. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003348.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003348
Antoniou AC, et al. Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:497–506.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1400382
Southey MC, et al. PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM rare variants and cancer risk: data from COGS. J Med Genet. 2016;53:800–811.
doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2016-103839
Easton DF, et al. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2243–2257.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1501341
Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10:37–48.
doi: 10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008
Malkin D, et al. Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science. 1990;250:1233–1238.
doi: 10.1126/science.1978757
Rivera-Munoz EA, et al. ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel experiences and standardized processes for disease and gene-level specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variant interpretation. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1614–1622.
doi: 10.1002/humu.23645
Martin AR, et al. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat Genet. 2019;51:584–591.
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x