Abstract
Background 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 (GWASs). 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.
Methods The Psychiatric Genomics Consortium working groups for schizophrenia (SCZ) and major depressive disorder (MDD) bring together many independently collected case- control cohorts. We used these resources (31K SCZ cases, 41K controls; 248K MDD cases, 563K 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 nine methods that model genetic architecture more formally: SBLUP, LDpred2-Inf, LDpred-funct, LDpred2, Lassosum, PRS-CS, PRS-CS-auto, SBayesR, MegaPRS) are compared.
Results Compared to PC+T, the other nine methods give higher prediction statistics, MegaPRS, LDPred2 and SBayesR significantly so, up to 9.2% variance in liability for SCZ across 30 target cohorts, an increase of 44%. For MDD across 26 target cohorts these statistics were 3.5% and 59%, respectively.
Conclusions Although the methods that more formally model genetic architecture have similar performance, MegaPRS, LDpred2, and SBayesR rank highest in most comparison and are recommended in applications to psychiatric disorders.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We acknowledge funding from the National health and Medical Research Council (1173790,1078901,108788 (NRW),1113400 (NRW, PMV)) and the Australian Research Council (FL180100072 (PMV)). The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (U01 MH109528 and U01 MH1095320). The Muenster cohort was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, grant FOR2107 DA1151/5-1 and DA1151/5-2 to U.D.; SFB-TRR58, Projects C09 and Z02 to U.D.) and the Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF) of the medical faculty of Muenster (grant Dan3/012/17 to U.D.). Some data used in this study were obtained from dbGaP. dbGaP accession phs000021: funding support for the Genome-Wide Association of Schizophrenia Study was provided by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH67257, R01 MH59588, R01 MH59571, R01 MH59565, R01 MH59587, R01 MH60870, R01 MH59566, R01 MH59586, R01 MH61675, R01 MH60879, R01 MH81800, U01 MH46276, U01 MH46289, U01 MH46318, U01 MH79469, and U01 MH79470) , and the genotyping of samples was provided through the Genetic Association Information Network (GAIN). Samples and associated phenotype data for the Genome-Wide Association of Schizophrenia Study were provided by the Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia Collaboration (principal investigator P. V. Gejman, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (ENH) and Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA). dbGaP accession phs000196: this work used in part data from the NINDS dbGaP database from the CIDR: NGRC PARKINSON'S DISEASE STUDY. dbGaP accession phs000187: High-Density SNP Association Analysis of Melanoma: Case-Control and Outcomes Investigation. Research support to collect data and develop an application to support this project was provided by P50 CA093459, P50 CA097007, R01 ES011740, and R01 CA133996 from the NIH. Statistical analyses were carried out on the Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org) hosted by SURFsara and financially supported by the Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO 480-05-003) along with a supplement from the Dutch Brain Foundation and the VU University Amsterdam.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol used by 23andMe was approved by an external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board.
Some data used in this study were obtained from dbGaP.Research support to collect data and develop an application to support this project was provided by P50 CA093459, P50 CA097007, R01 ES011740, and R01 CA133996 from the NIH.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets stored in the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium central server follow strict guidelines with local ethics committee approval.
