Evaluating the performance of polygenic risk profiling across diverse ancestry populations in Parkinson’s disease

Objective This study aims to address disparities in risk prediction by evaluating the performance of polygenic risk score (PRS) models using the 90 risk variants across 78 independent loci previously linked to Parkinson’s disease (PD) risk across seven diverse ancestry populations. Methods We conducted a multi-stage study, testing PRS models in predicting PD status across seven different ancestries applying three approaches: 1) PRS adjusted by gender and age; 2) PRS adjusted by gender, age and principal components (PCs); and 3) PRS adjusted by gender, age and percentage of population admixture. These models were built using the largest four population-specific summary statistics of PD risk to date (base data) and individual level data obtained from the Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (target data). We performed power calculations to estimate the minimum sample size required to conduct these analyses. A total of 91 PRS models were developed to investigate cumulative known genetic variation associated with PD risk and age of onset in a global context. Results We observed marked heterogeneity in risk estimates across non-European ancestries, including East Asians, Central Asians, Latino/Admixed Americans, Africans, African admixed, and Ashkenazi Jewish populations. Risk allele patterns for the 90 risk variants yielded significant differences in directionality, frequency, and magnitude of effect. PRS did not improve in performance when predicting disease status using similar base and target data across multiple ancestries, demonstrating that cumulative PRS models based on current known risk are inherently biased towards European populations. We found that PRS models adjusted by percentage of admixture outperformed models that adjusted for conventional PCs in highly admixed populations. Overall, the clinical utility of our models in individually predicting PD status is limited in concordance with the estimates observed in European populations. Interpretation This study represents the first comprehensive assessment of how PRS models predict PD risk and age at onset in a multi-ancestry fashion. Given the heterogeneity and distinct genetic architecture of PD across different populations, our assessment emphasizes the need for larger and diverse study cohorts of individual-level target data and well-powered ancestry-specific summary statistics. Our current understanding of PD status unraveled through GWAS in European populations is not generally applicable to other ancestries. Future studies should integrate clinical and *omics level data to enhance the accuracy and predictive power of PRS across diverse populations.


INTRODUCTION
The heritability attributed to idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) in European populations is estimated to be around 22% 1 .Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been key at identifying common loci that contribute to PD risk.A total of 90 risk variants across 78 independent loci have been associated with PD risk in the European ancestry populations 1 .More recently, largescale efforts are focusing on increasing genetic diversity in PD studies to unravel the genetic architecture of disease across ancestries [2][3][4][5] .The largest trans-ethnic PD GWAS meta-analysis to date performed in European, East Asian, Latino/Admixed American, and African ancestry populations identified a total of 78 loci, 12 of which had not been previously identified 6 .
A polygenic risk score (PRS) can be generated to estimate an individual's susceptibility to a binary outcome, exploring the cumulative estimated effect of common genetic variants on an individual's phenotype like PD 7,8 .However, PRS alone has not been shown to have clinical utility in predicting PD in European populations, with only 56.9% sensitivity and 63.2% specificity at best to predict disease 9 . PRS utility improves both sensitivity (83.4%) and specificity (90.3%) to predict disease when including relevant clinical criteria such as olfactory function, family history, age, and gender 9,10 .Similarly, the integration of environmental factors ameliorates case/control stratification 10,11 while the combination of multi-omics and clinical criteria in PRS models boosts prediction models across multiple diseases 11,12 .PRS estimates are still limited by cohort size, sparse or inconsistent clinical characteristics, and especially by a lack of diverse genetic background, as most GWAS data are only available for Europeans.Using PRS to calculate disease risk in a single population may exacerbate existing health disparities as it cannot be accurately implemented across diverse ancestries 13,14 .To date, this limitation has been underscored by a number of studies in diseases such as coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast and prostate cancer, where PRS models largely based on European population estimates fail to predict risk accurately in a global context [15][16][17] .Therefore, more studies that investigate how genetic risk of disease varies within and between different ancestral populations are needed.
In this study, we assess differences in the power, application, and generalizability of PRS models for .

Study Participants
Our study workflow is highlighted in Figure 1. that includes 1,914,935 variants encompassing ancestry informative markers, markers for identity by descent determination, and X-chromosome SNPs for sex determination.Additionally, the array includes 96,517 customized variants.Automated genotype data processing was conducted on GenoTools, a Python pipeline built for quality control and ancestry estimation of data.Additional details can be found at (https://github.com/GP2code/GenoTools).
Quality control (QC) was performed according to standard protocols.Samples with a call rate below 95%, sex mismatches, or high heterozygosity (estimated by an |F| statistics of > 0.25) were excluded from analyses.Further QC measures included the removal of SNPs with missingness above 5%, variants with significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE P value < 1E-4), variants with non-random missingness (case-control status at P≤1E-4), and variants with missing data patterns (haplotype at P≤1E-4 per ancestry).

Ancestry predictions
The samples were divided into different groups based on ancestry estimates, which involved determining the ancestral background of each sample using reference panels from the 1000 Genomes Project (https://www.internationalgenome.org/data-portal/data-collection/phase-1)

Base data
Ancestry-specific summary statistics generation A comprehensive explanation of each step to generate 23andMe summary statistics can be found elsewhere 6 . Briefly, the 23andMe data generation process could be summarized in the following steps.After genotyping of 23andMe participants was completed, an ancestry classifier algorithm was used to determine participant ancestries based on local ancestry and reference populations.
Next, phasing was performed to reconstruct haplotypes using genotyping platform-specific panels followed by imputation of missing genotypes, expanding the variant dataset using two independent reference panels.Related individuals were then excluded using a segmental identity-by-descent estimation algorithm to ensure unrelated participants.Finally, a GWAS analysis adjusted by covariates age, sex, and principal components was conducted followed by GWAS QC measures to flag potential issues with SNPs, ensuring data integrity.
For a detailed description of the methods used to generate East Asian summary statistics, refer to the study by Foo et al. 2 Similarly, detailed information of the Latino/Admixed American summary statistics can be found in Loesch et al.

3
. The GWAS meta-analysis of each population was carried out using fixed effects based on beta and SE values for the 90 risk variants.
The risk predictors were weighted by summary statistics magnitude of effects, giving greater weight to alleles with higher risk estimates (Figure 1).Logistic or linear regression analysis was employed to predict PD status and age of onset, respectively.To assess the predictive ability of the PRS across different populations, three distinct analyses were conducted.First, PRS analyses were performed adjusting by gender and age.Then, an additional approach was conducted adjusting by age, gender and PCs to account for population substructure.Finally, a third and novel approach was applied adjusting by age, gender and percentage of ancestry admixture.These three approaches were performed across each of the seven GP2 ancestry populations (target datasets) using the four different populationspecific summary statistics individually (base datasets), totaling 84 PRS models predicting disease risk and 7 PRS models predicting age at disease onset (Figure 1).The results were visualized through heatmaps for ancestry comparisons, density plots for disease probabilities, forest plots for magnitude of effects comparison, area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) assessments for sensitivity and specificity of the models.Finally, UpSet visualizations were used to display heterogeneity estimated across known loci and multiple ancestries.
PAGE 10

Risk estimates show expected high levels of heterogeneity in predicting disease status across diverse ancestry populations
We used individual-level data from seven ancestry populations (target data) to examine risk allele patterns across the 90 risk variants (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 2).We found significant heterogeneity among these predictors when standardizing the effect allele for each estimate.
When we looked at the risk patterns across different populations, we observed differences in directionality, frequency and magnitude of effect (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 3).These findings confirmed that our current understanding of PD risk is biased toward Europeans, as the 90 risk alleles assessed in the present work were originally discovered in European GWAS, leaving much genetic variability to be uncovered.For example, the GBA1 risk variants (GBA1-E326K and GBA1-N370S) were absent when exploring the GBA1 locus in African and African admixed ancestries due to allele frequencies and population-specific risk.African and African admixed populations rarely harbor GBA1-E326K and GBA1-N370S mutations 4  .We envisage that GBA1 is not the only example where differences in the genetic architecture at the locus level exist.
Polygenic risk scores do not show higher performance in predicting disease status when using similar base and target data across multiple ancestries.
To evaluate the utility of PRS to predict disease status, we applied three regression analysis models; 1) Baseline PRS analysis (which is only adjusted by gender and age), 2) PRS adjusted by gender, age, and PCs, and 3) PRS adjusted by gender, age and percentage of admixture (Tables 2a, b, c & 3, Figure 1).PRS models built using European summary statistics (base data) showed the largest number of risk predictors retrieved across the seven studied ancestries (ranging from 83-90 SNPs) (Supplementary Table 2, Figure 2).Nevertheless, when using East Asian base data (Foo et al., 2020 -23andMe GWAS meta-analysis), our PRS models showed limited coverage with the least number of retrieved risk predictors (ranging from 60-64) (Supplementary Table 2, Figure 2).The genetic structure across populations is different and thus so are variant imputation and allele frequencies.
Generally, PRS models across the seven target ancestries performed better when built based on European population base data as compared to other population-specific summary statistics based PRS models (Figure 3, Table 2a, Supplementary , our study expands on previous knowledge by comparing the performance of PRS across seven ancestry populations, including European, African admixed, African, Ashkenazi Jewish, Latino/Admixed American, Central Asian, and East Asian populations.
Our findings highlight the existing bias in our understanding of PD risk, which predominantly relies on European populations.By examining the 90 risk variants from the latest and largest European GWAS meta-analysis in PD across seven ancestries, we observed differences in the directionalities of these predictors in different ancestries.This indicates that risk alleles vary across populations and leaves significant genetic variability unexplored and unaccounted for.When adjusting by percentage of admixture, PRS models outperform conventional principal component adjusted models in highly admixed populations like the African admixed and Latino/Admixed American populations.The genetic heterogeneity of PD across populations highlights the need to identify additional population-specific risk variation, such as the novel intronic GBA1 variant in the African population 4 , SV2C and WBSCR17 in East Asians, and HEATR6 in the Chinese population 29 in addition to the 12 potentially novel risk loci from a recent multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analysis on PD risk
In terms of overall performance across the seven ancestries, the best performance of PRS modelsusing the four summary statistics (base data) -was on our positive control, the European population.This is expected considering that we are applying a PRS model based on European GWAS nominated risk.Following the European population, Ashkenazi Jewish, African admixed, and Latino/Admixed American populations showed the largest effect sizes respectively.Not surprisingly, the models perform relatively well in these populations, which harbor certain levels of European admixture.Our results are in line with a recent study in the African admixed general population, that showed a positive correlation between PRS and percentage of European ancestry when using the 90 risk variants reported in Nalls et al., 2019 1,30 .
When using the same base and target specific ancestry population data, the highest PRS predictive accuracy was observed in the Latino/Admixed American population, aligning with estimations based on ancestry prediction models (Supplementary Figure 1).Evaluating the performance of polygenic risk profiling across diverse ancestry populations in Parkinson's  To construct a total of 84 PRS models for PD risk and 7 PRS models for age at onset, three different approaches were implemented.The obtained results were visually presented using various plots; heatmap for ancestry comparison, density plots for disease probability, forest plots for magnitude of effect and ROC plots for sensitivity and specificity.
determine the optimal p-value threshold for common genetic variations predisposing to PD risk in a cumulative manner.Additionally, future studies may benefit from conducting composite PRS analysis to identify optimized SNP sets across multiple ancestries with a cumulative genetic effect for more effective risk prediction.These advancements have the potential to enhance the precision and applicability of PRS analysis in PD research, leading to personalized strategies for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Figures
Figures

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Multi-ancestry Parkinson's disease Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) schematic workflowThe figure illustrates a summarized workflow, depicting the datasets utilized, consisting of target data from seven distinct ancestry populations: African Admixed (AAC), African (AFR), Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ), Latino/Admixed American (AMR), Central Asian (CAS), East Asian (EAS), and European (EUR).The base data comprised summary statistics from four ancestries.To construct a total of 84 PRS models for PD risk and 7 PRS models for age at onset, three different approaches were implemented.The obtained results were visually presented using various plots; heatmap for ancestry comparison, density plots for disease probability, forest plots for magnitude of effect and ROC plots for sensitivity and specificity.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Upset plot showing risk heterogeneity across multiple ancestries.The 90 risk variants are represented in this plot in a granular way.The Y axis represents each ancestry populations and the X axis the 90 risk variants.The color bar shows the magnitude of effects as log of the odd ratio (beta value) and directionality, with red color denoting negative directionality, and purple and blue colors denoting positive directionality.

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: PRS performance for predicting disease status The Y axis represents individual level data, and the X axis represents the three different PRS approaches per population-specific summary statistics.The color bar indicate the magnitude of effect as log of the odds ratio (beta value).The darker the color is the larger the magnitude of effect.The asterisks indicate statistical significance of P value.
We obtained individual-level data from the Global (Supplementary Figure1, see Methods for ancestry clustering description).Detailed demographic and clinical characteristics can be found in Table1.Our reference datasets (here referred to as base data) consisted of summary statistics from previously published GWAS in addition to 23andMe.23andMe participants provided informed consent and volunteered to participate in the research online, under a protocol approved by the external AAHRPP-accredited IRB, Ethical & Independent (https://www.versiticlinicaltrials.org/salusirb).The full GWAS summary statistics for the 23andMe discovery data set will be made available through 23andMe to qualified researchers under an agreement with 23andMe that protects the privacy of the 23andMe participants.Datasets will be We performed genotype data generation according to standard protocols from the Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (GP2; DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7904832,release 5; https://gp2.org/;18 .In summary, samples were genotyped on the NeuroBooster array (v.1.0,Illumina, San Diego, CA) Middle Eastern, and 99 Finish individuals.We refined the reference panel by excluding palindromic SNPs (AT or TA or GC or CG).Additionally, SNPs within the reference panel underwent further filtering to exclude variants with a minor allele frequency (MAF) lower than 0.05, genotyping call rate less than 0.99, and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) p-value less than 1E-4.Variants that overlapped between the reference panel SNP set and the samples of interest were specifically extracted.In total, 39,302 variants were used for ancestry estimations.In cases where genotypes were missing, imputation was performed by utilizing the mean value of that variant from the reference panel.To assess the performance of the ancestry estimation, an 80/20 train/test split was applied to the reference panel samples.PCs were then calculated using the overlapping SNPs.Transforming the 20 , Human Genome Diversity Project 21 , and an Ashkenazi Jewish population dataset 22 .Our reference panel, at time of writing (July 2023), consists of 703 African, 601 South Asian, 585 East Asian, 534 European, 490 Latin American, 471 Ashkenazi Jewish, 190 African admixed, 183 Central Asian, 152 PCs through UMAP enabled the representation of global genetic population substructure and stochastic variation.Training a linear support vector classifier on the UMAP transformations of the PCs achieved consistent predictions with balanced accuracies exceeding 0.95, as determined bytesting the classifier on the reference panel's test data through 5-fold cross-validation.These classifier models were subsequently applied to the GP2 data to generate ancestry estimates for all datasets.For detailed insights into the cloud-based and scalable pipeline used for genotype calling, (https://github.com/GP2code/GenoTools).Following ancestry estimation, we excluded duplicated or monozygotic twin samples (KING coefficient > 0.354), and those with second-degree or closer relatedness (KING coefficient > 0.0884).PCs that were used as covariates in the PRS analysis were calculated separately per ancestry after initial QC and ancestry prediction were complete.Percentage of ancestry was then calculated with the supervised functionality of ADMIXTURE (v1.3.0;https://dalexander.github.io/admixture/binaries/admixture_linux-1.3.0.tar.gz), which used the labeled reference panel data as training samples to estimate the ancestry proportions of the GP2 data.ImputationVariants with a minor allele frequency (MAF) of less than 0.005 and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) p-value less than 1E-5 were excluded before submission to the TOPMed Imputation server.underwentpruning based on a minor allele count (MAC) threshold of 10 and an imputation Rsq value of 0.3.

.
This indicates that the genetic diversity within a population -represented byPCs-is well-captured in those cohorts with marginal levels of admixture.However, conventional PRS models adjusted by PCs do not optimally account for genetic substructure in highly admixed cohorts such as the African admixed and Latino/Admixed populations.Polygenic risk scores predicting age at onset with limited statistical power Most of our PRS models of PD age of onset returned statistically insignificant-except for the Ashkenazi Jewish and European populations' scores (Table3).This was expected considering the large sample size needed to achieve desired power in this analysis as described above (see sample size calculation section of the Methods).In terms of directionality, we would expect PRS to be inversely correlated with age of onset in concordance withNalls, 2015 Several limitations should be acknowledged.Due to limited information on heritability, disease prevalence, and risk predictors for non-European ancestries, sample size power calculations were performed using current estimates from the European population as a reference.Consequently, this may result in a biased estimate regarding the sample size required to predict disease status across diverse ancestries.Additionally, the estimates of our models are influenced by the number of available SNPs in each dataset, which introduces bias.This bias arises from variations in the risk alleles.Studying PD cohorts, as opposed to those diagnosed based on clinical diagnostic criteria, is also important, as at least 5% of individuals diagnosed with PD do not demonstrate neuronal alpha-synuclein, which is required for definitive local ancestry can improve PRS accuracy, especially in multi-ancestry cohorts, because it allows us to use summary statistics from the ancestry PRS panel that matches with that specific region of the chromosome of the individual that we are inferring the risk, avoiding inflation/deflation because of ancestry specific , we might uncover complex patterns and interactions not evident with conventional approaches.As more data becomes available, leveraging tools like Tractor