Local Genetic Sex Differences in Quantitative Traits
Uffelmann, E.; de Leeuw, C.; Posthuma, D.
Show abstract
Many traits show small global sex differences in genetic correlations and heritability. However, how these differences are distributed across the genome remains unknown. Here, we use LAVA to test for local genetic sex differences in genetic correlations, heritabilities, and the magnitude of genetic effects across 157 quantitative traits in the UK Biobank. Nearly every trait shows evidence for sex-dimorphic effects in at least one locus. We find that such loci can flag biological differences between the sexes. Moreover, we test for differences in the magnitude of genetic effects on the raw and the standardized scale. We show these have complementary interpretations, where only the latter scale is informative for heritability. Our results show how average metrics of genetic correlation and heritability across the whole genome can mask important variability between loci and that the scale of genetic effects needs to be considered carefully when comparing their magnitudes.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A novel method for an unbiased estimate of cross-ancestry genetic correlation using individual-level data 97%
- Testing and controlling for horizontal pleiotropy with the probabilistic Mendelian randomization in transcriptome-wide association studies 96%
- Theoretical and empirical quantification of the accuracy of polygenic scores in ancestry divergent populations 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Challenges to case-only analysis for gene-environment interaction detection using polygenic risk scores: model assumptions and biases in large biobanks 94%
- Ancestry adjustment improves genome-wide estimates of regional intolerance 94%
- Mendelian randomisation with proxy exposures: challenges and opportunities 93%
"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.