Back

Spatial Distribution of Missense Variants within Complement Proteins Associates with Age Related Macular Degeneration

Grunin, M.; de Jong, S.; Palmer, E. L.; Jin, B.; Rinker, D.; Moth, C.; Capra, J. A.; Haines, J. L.; Bush, W.; den Hollander, A.; International Age-related Macular Degeneration Genomics Consortium,

2023-08-31 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2023.08.28.23294686
Show abstract

PurposeGenetic variants in complement genes are associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). However, many rare variants have been identified in these genes, but have an unknown significance, and their impact on protein function and structure is still unknown. We set out to address this issue by evaluating the spatial placement and impact on protein structureof these variants by developing an analytical pipeline and applying it to the International AMD Genomics Consortium (IAMDGC) dataset (16,144 AMD cases, 17,832 controls). MethodsThe IAMDGC dataset was imputed using the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC), leading to an improvement of over 30% more imputed variants, over the original 1000 Genomes imputation. Variants were extracted for the CFH, CFI, CFB, C9, and C3 genes, and filtered for missense variants in solved protein structures. We evaluated these variants as to their placement in the three-dimensional structure of the protein (i.e. spatial proximity in the protein), as well as AMD association. We applied several pipelines to a) calculate spatial proximity to known AMD variants versus gnomAD variants, b) assess a variants likelihood of causing protein destabilization via calculation of predicted free energy change (ddG) using Rosetta, and c) whole gene-based testing to test for statistical associations. Gene-based testing using seqMeta was performed using a) all variants b) variants near known AMD variants or c) with a ddG >|2|. Further, we applied a structural kernel adaptation of SKAT testing (POKEMON) to confirm the association of spatial distributions of missense variants to AMD. Finally, we used logistic regression on known AMD variants in CFI to identify variants leading to >50% reduction in protein expression from known AMD patient carriers of CFI variants compared to wild type (as determined by in vitro experiments) to determine the pipelines robustness in identifying AMD-relevant variants. These results were compared to functional impact scores, ie CADD values > 10, which indicate if a variant may have a large functional impact genomewide, to determine if our metrics have better discriminative power than existing variant assessment methods. Once our pipeline had been validated, we then performed a priori selection of variants using this pipeline methodology, and tested AMD patient cell lines that carried those selected variants from the EUGENDA cohort (n=34). We investigated complement pathway protein expression in vitro, looking at multiple components of the complement factor pathway in patient carriers of bioinformatically identified variants. ResultsMultiple variants were found with a ddG>|2| in each complement gene investigated. Gene-based tests using known and novel missense variants identified significant associations of the C3, C9, CFB, and CFH genes with AMD risk after controlling for age and sex (P=3.22x10-5;7.58x10-6;2.1x10-3;1.2x10-31). ddG filtering and SKAT-O tests indicate that missense variants that are predicted to destabilize the protein, in both CFI and CFH, are associated with AMD (P=CFH:0.05, CFI:0.01, threshold of 0.05 significance). Our structural kernel approach identified spatial associations for AMD risk within the protein structures for C3, C9, CFB, CFH, and CFI at a nominal p-value of 0.05. Both ddG and CADD scores were predictive of reduced CFI protein expression, with ROC curve analyses indicating ddG is a better predictor (AUCs of 0.76 and 0.69, respectively). A priori in vitro analysis of variants in all complement factor genes indicated that several variants identified via bioinformatics programs PathProx/POKEMON in our pipeline via in vitro experiments caused significant change in complement protein expression (P=0.04) in actual patient carriers of those variants, via ELISA testing of proteins in the complement factor pathway, and were previously unknown to contribute to AMD pathogenesis. ConclusionWe demonstrate for the first time that missense variants in complement genes cluster together spatially and are associated with AMD case/control status. Using this method, we can identify CFI and CFH variants of previously unknown significance that are predicted to destabilize the proteins. These variants, both in and outside spatial clusters, can predict in-vitro tested CFI protein expression changes, and we hypothesize the same is true for CFH. A priori identification of variants that impact gene expression allow for classification for previously classified as VUS. Further investigation is needed to validate the models for additional variants and to be applied to all AMD-associated genes.

Matching journals

1
Nature Communications
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 483 published papers
Top 11%
3.1× avg
2
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Elsevier BV · based on 77 published papers
Top 2%
15× avg
3
PLOS Genetics
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 39 published papers
Top 0.2%
41× avg
4
Human Genetics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 14 published papers
#1
108× avg
5
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
MDPI AG · based on 39 published papers
Top 0.3%
33× avg
6
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 43%
4.5%
7
Cell Genomics
Elsevier BV · based on 34 published papers
Top 0.4%
39× avg
8
Human Molecular Genetics
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 28 published papers
Top 0.4%
34× avg
9
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.6%
44× avg
10
npj Genomic Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 18 published papers
Top 0.4%
34× avg
11
Nature Genetics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 72 published papers
Top 4%
5.9× avg
12
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
Elsevier BV · based on 39 published papers
Top 0.2%
32× avg
13
Human Mutation
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
Top 0.5%
48× avg
14
Genome Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 56 published papers
Top 3%
7.7× avg
15
Bioinformatics
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 24 published papers
Top 0.7%
23× avg
16
Frontiers in Genetics
Frontiers Media SA · based on 32 published papers
Top 2%
9.8× avg
17
eLife
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd · based on 262 published papers
Top 18%
1.5× avg
18
Ophthalmology Science
Elsevier BV · based on 15 published papers
Top 1%
16× avg
19
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 93%
1.2%
20
Human Genomics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 13 published papers
Top 1%
25× avg
21
BMC Medical Genomics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.7%
16× avg
22
Genes
MDPI AG · based on 21 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
23
Genome Biology
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 14 published papers
Top 2%
15× avg
24
Cancers
MDPI AG · based on 57 published papers
Top 7%
1.6× avg
25
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 30 published papers
Top 5%
3.2× avg
26
Communications Biology
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 36 published papers
Top 5%
4.9× avg
27
Brain
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 69 published papers
Top 8%
1.7× avg
28
European Journal of Human Genetics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 25 published papers
Top 3%
8.0× avg
29
iScience
Elsevier BV · based on 74 published papers
Top 9%
2.8× avg
30
Journal of Medical Genetics
BMJ · based on 22 published papers
Top 2%
9.0× avg