Back

Polygenic scoring accuracy varies across the genetic ancestry continuum in all human populations

Ding, Y.; Hou, K.; Xu, Z.; Pimplaskar, A.; Petter, E.; Boulier, K.; Prive, F.; Vilhjalmsson, B. J.; Loohuis, L. O.; Pasaniuc, B.

2022-09-29 genetics
10.1101/2022.09.28.509988 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Polygenic scores (PGS) have limited portability across different groupings of individuals (e.g., by genetic ancestries and/or social determinants of health), preventing their equitable use. PGS portability has typically been assessed using a single aggregate population-level statistic (e.g., R2), ignoring inter-individual variation within the population. Here we evaluate PGS accuracy at individual-level resolution, independent of its annotated genetic ancestries. We show that PGS accuracy varies between individuals across the genetic ancestry continuum in all ancestries, even within traditionally "homogeneous" genetic ancestry clusters. Using a large and diverse Los Angeles biobank (ATLAS, N= 36,778) along with the UK Biobank (UKBB, N= 487,409), we show that PGS accuracy decreases along a continuum of genetic ancestries in all considered populations and the trend is well-captured by a continuous measure of genetic distance (GD) from the PGS training data; Pearson correlation of -0.95 between GD and PGS accuracy averaged across 84 traits. When applying PGS models trained in UKBB "white British" individuals to European-ancestry individuals of ATLAS, individuals in the highest GD decile have 14% lower accuracy relative to the lowest decile; notably the lowest GD decile of Hispanic/Latino American ancestry individuals showed similar PGS performance as the highest GD decile of European ancestry ATLAS individuals. GD is significantly correlated with PGS estimates themselves for 82 out of 84 traits, further emphasizing the importance of incorporating the continuum of genetic ancestry in PGS interpretation. Our results highlight the need for moving away from discrete genetic ancestry clusters towards the continuum of genetic ancestries when considering PGS and their applications.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.