Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Improving the trans-ancestry portability of polygenic risk scores by prioritizing variants in predicted cell-type-specific regulatory elements

Nature Genetics volume 52, pages 1346–1354 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Poor trans-ancestry portability of polygenic risk scores is a consequence of Eurocentric genetic studies and limited knowledge of shared causal variants. Leveraging regulatory annotations may improve portability by prioritizing functional over tagging variants. We constructed a resource of 707 cell-type-specific IMPACT regulatory annotations by aggregating 5,345 epigenetic datasets to predict binding patterns of 142 transcription factors across 245 cell types. We then partitioned the common SNP heritability of 111 genome-wide association study summary statistics of European (average n ≈ 189,000) and East Asian (average n ≈ 157,000) origin. IMPACT annotations captured consistent SNP heritability between populations, suggesting prioritization of shared functional variants. Variant prioritization using IMPACT resulted in increased trans-ancestry portability of polygenic risk scores from Europeans to East Asians across all 21 phenotypes analyzed (49.9% mean relative increase in R2). Our study identifies a crucial role for functional annotations such as IMPACT to improve the trans-ancestry portability of genetic data.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Study design to identify regulatory annotations that prioritize regulatory variants in a multi-ancestry setting.
Fig. 2: IMPACT annotates relevant cell-type-specific regulatory elements.
Fig. 3: Trans-ancestry concordance of regulatory elements defined by IMPACT.
Fig. 4: Mechanism by which IMPACT prioritization of shared regulatory variants might improve trans-ancestry PRS performance.
Fig. 5: Identifying shared regulatory variants with IMPACT annotations to improve the trans-ancestry portability of PRS.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available at: IMPACT Github repository: https://github.com/immunogenomics/IMPACT; IMPACT 707 annotations: https://github.com/immunogenomics/IMPACT/tree/master/IMPACT707. Data were obtained from the following resources: HOMER: http://homer.ucsd.edu/homer/motif/; S-LDSC: https://github.com/bulik/ldsc; 1000 Genomes: http://www.internationalgenome.org/; cell-type-specifically expressed gene set annotations and LD scores: https://data.broadinstitute.org/alkesgroup/LDSCORE/LDSC_SEG_ldscores/; cell-type-specific histone modification ChIP–seq datasets: https://data.broadinstitute.org/alkesgroup/LDSCORE/; Plink: https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink2; Riken website: http://jenger.riken.jp/en/; Price Lab GWAS summary statistics: https://data.broadinstitute.org/alkesgroup/sumstats_formatted/; Neale Lab GWAS summary statistics: http://www.nealelab.is/uk-biobank; GWAS catalog: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/; Deep Learning: https://data.broadinstitute.org/alkesgroup/LDSCORE/DeepLearning/.

Code availability

We have provided code to recreate our analyses at https://github.com/immunogenomics/IMPACT/tree/master/IMPACT707/AnalysisCode.

References

  1. Sirugo, G., Williams, S. M. & Tishkoff, S. A. The missing diversity in human genetic studies. Cell 177, 26–31 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Vilhjálmsson, B. J. et al. Modeling linkage disequilibrium increases accuracy of polygenic risk scores. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97, 576–592 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Finucane, H. K. et al. Partitioning heritability by functional annotation using genome-wide association summary statistics. Nat. Genet. 47, 1228–1235 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 47, 291–295 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kichaev, G. & Pasaniuc, B. Leveraging functional-annotation data in trans-ethnic fine-mapping studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97, 260–271 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Martin, A. R. et al. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat. Genet. 51, 584–591 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lam, M. et al. Comparative genetic architectures of schizophrenia in East Asian and European populations. Nat. Genet. 51, 1670–1678 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. International Schizophrenia Consortium. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature 460, 748–752 (2009).

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chatterjee, N., Shi, J. & García-Closas, M. Developing and evaluating polygenic risk prediction models for stratified disease prevention. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 392–406 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Stahl, E. A. et al. Bayesian inference analyses of the polygenic architecture of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat. Genet. 44, 483–489 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chatterjee, N. et al. Projecting the performance of risk prediction based on polygenic analyses of genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 45, 405e1–405e3 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Khera, A. V. et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat. Genet. 50, 1219–1224 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Schumacher, F. R. et al. Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci. Nat. Genet. 50, 928–936 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharp, S. A. et al. Development and standardization of an improved type 1 diabetes genetic risk score for use in newborn screening and incident diagnosis. Diabetes Care 42, 200–207 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kullo, I. J. et al. Incorporating a genetic risk score into coronary heart disease risk estimates: effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (the MI-GENES Clinical Trial). Circulation 133, 1181–1188 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Natarajan, P. et al. Polygenic risk score identifies subgroup with higher burden of atherosclerosis and greater relative benefit from statin therapy in the primary prevention setting. Circulation 135, 2091–2101 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Márquez-Luna, C., Loh, P.-R., South Asian type 2 Diabetes (SAT2D) Consortium, SIGMA Type 2 Diabetes Consortium & Price, A. L. Multiethnic polygenic risk scores improve risk prediction in diverse populations. Genet. Epidemiol. 41, 811–823 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Duncan, L. et al. Analysis of polygenic risk score usage and performance in diverse human populations. Nat. Commun. 10, 3328 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Curtis, D. Polygenic risk score for schizophrenia is more strongly associated with ancestry than with schizophrenia. Psychiatr. Genet. 28, 85–89 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin, A. R. et al. Human demographic history impacts genetic risk prediction across diverse populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 100, 635–649 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hu, Y. et al. Leveraging functional annotations in genetic risk prediction for human complex diseases. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005589 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Márquez-Luna, C. et al. Modeling functional enrichment improves polygenic prediction accuracy in UK Biobank and 23andMe data sets. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/375337 (2018).

  23. Okada, Y. et al. Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis contributes to biology and drug discovery. Nature 506, 376–381 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kanai, M. et al. Genetic analysis of quantitative traits in the Japanese population links cell types to complex human diseases. Nat. Genet. 50, 390–400 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yengo, L. et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for height and body mass index in ∼700000 individuals of European ancestry. Hum. Mol. Genet. 27, 3641–3649 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Schaub, M. A., Boyle, A. P., Kundaje, A., Batzoglou, S. & Snyder, M. Linking disease associations with regulatory information in the human genome. Genome Res. 22, 1748–1759 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Maurano, M. T. et al. Systematic localization of common disease-associated variation in regulatory DNA. Science 337, 1190–1195 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Reshef, Y. A. et al. Detecting genome-wide directional effects of transcription factor binding on polygenic disease risk. Nat. Genet. 50, 1483–1493 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu, X., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. Trans effects on gene expression can drive omnigenic inheritance. Cell 177, 1022–1034.e6 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lloyd-Jones, L. R. et al. Improved polygenic prediction by Bayesian multiple regression on summary statistics. Nat. Commun. 10, 5086 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Amariuta, T. et al. IMPACT: genomic annotation of cell-state-specific regulatory elements inferred from the epigenome of bound transcription factors. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 879–895 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kawakami, E., Nakaoka, S., Ohta, T. & Kitano, H. Weighted enrichment method for prediction of transcription regulators from transcriptome and global chromatin immunoprecipitation data. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 5010–5021 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Roadmap EpigenomicsConsortium. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).

  35. Gazal, S. et al. Linkage disequilibrium–dependent architecture of human complex traits shows action of negative selection. Nat. Genet. 49, 1421–1427 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Buniello, A. et al. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D1005–D1012 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Akiyama, M. et al. Characterizing rare and low-frequency height-associated variants in the Japanese population. Nat. Commun. 10, 4393 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Akiyama, M. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 112 new loci for body mass index in the Japanese population. Nat. Genet. 49, 1458–1467 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ishigaki, K. et al. Large-scale genome-wide association study in a Japanese population identifies novel susceptibility loci across different diseases. Nat. Genet. 52, 669–679 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Peterson, R. E. et al. Genome-wide association studies in ancestrally diverse populations: opportunities, methods, pitfalls, and recommendations. Cell 179, 589–603 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Gurdasani, D., Barroso, I., Zeggini, E. & Sandhu, M. S. Genomics of disease risk in globally diverse populations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 520–535 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Drake, L. Y. et al. B cells play key roles in th2-type airway immune responses in mice exposed to natural airborne allergens. PLoS One 10, e0121660 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Amariuta, T., Luo, Y., Knevel, R., Okada, Y. & Raychaudhuri, S. Advances in genetics toward identifying pathogenic cell states of rheumatoid arthritis. Immunol. Rev. 294, 188–204 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Buttari, B., Profumo, E. & Riganò, R. Crosstalk between red blood cells and the immune system and its impact on atherosclerosis. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 616834 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Anderson, H. L., Brodsky, I. E. & Mangalmurti, N. S. The evolving erythrocyte: red blood cells as modulators of innate immunity. J. Immunol. 201, 1343–1351 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lui, J. C. & Baron, J. Mechanisms limiting body growth in mammals. Endocr. Rev. 32, 422–440 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Maier, A. B., van Heemst, D. & Westendorp, R. G. J. Relation between body height and replicative capacity of human fibroblasts in nonagenarians. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 63, 43–45 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Murphy, R. A. et al. Adipose tissue, muscle, and function: potential mediators of associations between body weight and mortality in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 37, 3213–3219 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Heymsfield, S. B., Gallagher, D., Mayer, L., Beetsch, J. & Pietrobelli, A. Scaling of human body composition to stature: new insights into body mass index. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 86, 82–91 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kichaev, G. et al. Leveraging polygenic functional enrichment to improve GWAS power. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 65–75 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gusev, A. et al. Atlas of prostate cancer heritability in European and African-American men pinpoints tissue-specific regulation. Nat. Commun. 7, 10979 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Finucane, H. K. et al. Heritability enrichment of specifically expressed genes identifies disease-relevant tissues and cell types. Nat. Genet. 50, 621–629 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Gibbs, R. A. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhou, J. & Troyanskaya, O. G. Predicting effects of noncoding variants with deep learning-based sequence model. Nat. Methods 12, 931–934 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Chen, K. M., Cofer, E. M., Zhou, J. & Troyanskaya, O. G. Selene: a PyTorch-based deep learning library for sequence data. Nat. Methods 16, 315–318 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kelley, D. R. et al. Sequential regulatory activity prediction across chromosomes with convolutional neural networks. Genome Res. 28, 739–750 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Dey, K. K. et al. Evaluating the informativeness of deep learning annotations for human complex diseases. Nat. Commun. 11, 4703 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Nagai, A. et al. Overview of the BioBank Japan Project: study design and profile. J. Epidemiol. 27, S2–S8 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hirata, M. et al. Cross-sectional analysis of BioBank Japan clinical data: a large cohort of 200,000 patients with 47 common diseases. J. Epidemiol. 27, S9–S21 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Heinz, S. et al. Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Mol. Cell 38, 576–589 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Yang, J. et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat. Genet. 42, 565–569 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Yang, J., Zeng, J., Goddard, M. E., Wray, N. R. & Visscher, P. M. Concepts, estimation and interpretation of SNP-based heritability. Nat. Genet. 49, 1304–1310 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E., Wray, N. R. & Visscher, P. M. A better coefficient of determination for genetic profile analysis. Genet. Epidemiol. 36, 214–224 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by funding from the National Institutes of Health (grant nos. NHGRI T32 HG002295, UH2AR067677, 1U01HG009088, U01 HG009379 and 1R01AR063759).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Tiffany Amariuta, Kazuyoshi Ishigaki.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Data Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Tiffany Amariuta, Kazuyoshi Ishigaki & Soumya Raychaudhuri

  2. Divisions of Genetics and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Tiffany Amariuta, Kazuyoshi Ishigaki & Soumya Raychaudhuri

  3. Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Tiffany Amariuta, Kazuyoshi Ishigaki, Alkes L. Price & Soumya Raychaudhuri

  4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Tiffany Amariuta & Soumya Raychaudhuri

  5. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Tiffany Amariuta

  6. Laboratory for Statistical and Translational Genetics, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Kanagawa, Japan

    Kazuyoshi Ishigaki, Masaru Koido & Chikashi Terao

  7. Laboratory for Developmental Genetics, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences (IMS), Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroki Sugishita

  8. Medical Sciences Innovation Hub Program, RIKEN, Kanagawa, Japan

    Tazro Ohta & Eiryo Kawakami

  9. Database Center for Life Science, Joint Support-Center for Data Science Research, Research Organization of Information and Systems, Shizuoka, Japan

    Tazro Ohta

  10. Division of Molecular Pathology, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Masaru Koido & Yoshinori Murakami

  11. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Kushal K. Dey & Alkes L. Price

  12. Laboratory of Genome Technology, Human Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Koichi Matsuda

  13. Laboratory of Clinical Genome Sequencing, Department of Computational Biology and Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Koichi Matsuda

  14. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Alkes L. Price

  15. Artificial Intelligence Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan

    Eiryo Kawakami

  16. Clinical Research Center, Shizuoka General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Chikashi Terao

  17. Department of Applied Genetics, The School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan

    Chikashi Terao

  18. Centre for Genetics and Genomics Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Soumya Raychaudhuri

Authors
  1. Tiffany Amariuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazuyoshi Ishigaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroki Sugishita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tazro Ohta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masaru Koido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kushal K. Dey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Koichi Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yoshinori Murakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alkes L. Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Eiryo Kawakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Chikashi Terao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Soumya Raychaudhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.A., K.I. and S.R. conceived and designed the study. T.A., K.I., A.L.P. and S.R. conducted statistical genetic analysis. T.A. and S.R. conducted functional genomic data analysis. H.S., T.O. and E.K. performed TF ChIP–seq data collection and analysis. K.K.D., M.K. and A.L.P. performed deep learning analysis. K.I., K.M., Y.M. and C.T. managed and analyzed BBJ data. T.A., K.I. and S.R. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All co-authors contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soumya Raychaudhuri.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Data collection.

a) TF ChIP-seq collection from NCBI: (left) cell type and TF diversity where ‘Cell Deriv’ indicates number of unique parental cell types, for example GM12878 and GM10847 are both B cell lines, (right) diversity of tissue types. b) (left) Epigenomic and sequence features to be used in IMPACT models, (right) diversity of histone modification ChIP-seq in features. c) Diversity of European (EUR) and East Asian (EAS) GWAS summary statistics across phenotypic categories.

Extended Data Fig. 2 IMPACT annotation-trait associations.

Significant cell type-phenotype associations across 707 IMPACT regulatory annotations and 111 complex traits and diseases at τ* 5% FDR, color indicates -log10 FDR 5% adjusted P value of τ*. Zooms shows particular cell type categories enriched for polygenic trait associations.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Proportion of heritability in the top 5% of SNPs.

a) Common SNP heritability captured by the top 5% of SNPs according to the lead cell type association for each EUR GWAS. Lead association determined by largest τ* estimate that is significantly positive. b) Similar for each EAS GWAS. Gray bars indicate the standard error of the heritability estimate. Color represents the category of the complex trait or disease.

Extended Data Fig. 4 τ* comparison of IMPACT annotations versus cell-type-specific histone marks.

Comparison of two different functional annotations, IMPACT and cell-type-specific histone marks, to capture polygenic heritability assessed by quantifying τ* per-SNP heritability value. Circled are five representative traits used throughout the study: asthma, RA, PrCa, MCV, and height.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Common per-SNP heritability (τ*) estimate for sets of independent IMPACT cell type annotations across 29 traits.

Dotted line is the identity line, y=x. τ* values with their standard errors are colored green if significantly positive in EUR and not EAS, red if significantly positive in EAS but not in EUR, green if significantly positive in both EUR and EAS, and gray if not significantly positive in either population.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Population concordance of heterozygosity (2pq) among variants prioritized by IMPACT compared to standard P+T.

a) Heterozygosity of variants from genome-wide EUR and EAS PrCa summary statistics in the top 5% of the lead IMPACT annotation for EUR PrCa. b) Heterozygosity of variants from genome-wide EUR and EAS PrCa summary statistics using standard P+T. c) Heterozygosity of variants from genome-wide EUR and EAS PrCa summary statistics in the bottom 95% of the lead IMPACT annotation for PrCa; mutually exclusive with SNPs in A). d) Meta-analysis of heterozygosity correlations between populations across 21 traits shared between EUR and EAS cohorts over 17 GWAS P value thresholds (with reference to the EUR GWAS).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Population divergence, measured by Fst, among variants prioritized by IMPACT compared to standard P+T.

Larger values indicate a reduction in heterozygosity. Meta-analysis of Fst between EUR and EAS populations across 21 traits shared between EUR and EAS cohorts over 17 GWAS P value thresholds (with reference to the EUR GWAS).

Extended Data Fig. 8 EUR PRS model evaluated on EAS individuals from BBJ.

For each trait, we evaluate the predictive value of standard PRS models (top 100% of IMPACT SNPs) and functionally informed PRS models (using a subset of SNPs prioritized by IMPACT). The top 100% of SNPs according to IMPACT represents the PRS model with no functional annotation information. Intervals represent the 95% CI around the R2 estimate. For quantitative traits, R2 represents the proportion of variance captured by the linear PRS model. For case–control traits, R2 represents the liability scale R2 from the logistic regression PRS model.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Trans-ethnic and within-population PRS models evaluated on the same 5,000 BBJ individuals.

a) Phenotypic variance (R2) in 5,000 BBJ individuals explained by IMPACT-informed PRS-EUR (light pink) and standard PRS-EUR (light blue). b) Phenotypic variance (R2) in 5,000 BBJ individuals explained by IMPACT-informed PRS-EAS (light pink) and standard PRS-EAS (light blue). Error bars indicate 95% CI calculated via 1,000 bootstraps.

Extended Data Fig. 10 PRS accuracy is robust to loci of large effect.

We recomputed confidence intervals around the R2 estimates (panels A and B) and around the relative improvements in R2 estimates of IMPACT PRS over standard P+T PRS (panels C and D) via block jackknife across the genome, using 200 adjacent equally-sized bins and iteratively removing variants within each bin and computing the R2. a) Trans-ethnic analysis of EUR PRS to BBJ individuals. b) Within-population analysis of EAS PRS to BBJ individuals. Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval (CI) around the R2 estimates. c) Trans-ethnic analysis of EUR PRS to BBJ individuals, relative improvement in R2 estimates defined as (IMPACT R2 - standard P+T R2)/standard P+T R2. d) Within-population analysis of EAS PRS to BBJ individuals, relative improvement in R2 estimates defined as (IMPACT R2 - standard P+T R2)/standard P+T R2.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Note and Figs. 1–23

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–22

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amariuta, T., Ishigaki, K., Sugishita, H. et al. Improving the trans-ancestry portability of polygenic risk scores by prioritizing variants in predicted cell-type-specific regulatory elements. Nat Genet 52, 1346–1354 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-00740-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-00740-8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research