Pervasive correlations between causal disease effects of proximal SNPs vary with functional annotations and implicate stabilizing selection
Zhang, M. J.; Durvasula, A.; Chiang, C.; Koch, E. M.; Strober, B. J.; Shi, H.; Barton, A. R.; Kim, S. S.; Weissbrod, O.; Loh, P.-R.; Gazal, S.; Sunyaev, S.; Price, A.
Show abstract
The genetic architecture of human diseases and complex traits has been extensively studied, but little is known about the relationship of causal disease effect sizes between proximal SNPs, which have largely been assumed to be independent. We introduce a new method, LD SNP-pair effect correlation regression (LDSPEC), to estimate the correlation of causal disease effect sizes of derived alleles between proximal SNPs, depending on their allele frequencies, LD, and functional annotations; LDSPEC produced robust estimates in simulations across various genetic architectures. We applied LDSPEC to 70 diseases and complex traits from the UK Biobank (average N=306K), meta-analyzing results across diseases/traits. We detected significantly nonzero effect correlations for proximal SNP pairs (e.g., -0.37 {+/-}0.09 for low-frequency positive-LD 0-100bp SNP pairs) that decayed with distance (e.g., -0.07 {+/-}0.01 for low-frequency positive-LD 1-10kb), varied with allele frequency (e.g., -0.15 {+/-}0.04 for common positive-LD 0-100bp), and varied with LD between SNPs (e.g., +0.12 {+/-}0.05 for common negative-LD 0-100bp) (because we consider derived alleles, positive-LD and negative-LD SNP pairs may yield very different results). We further determined that SNP pairs with shared functions had stronger effect correlations that spanned longer genomic distances, e.g., -0.37 {+/-}0.08 for low-frequency positive-LD same-gene promoter SNP pairs (average genomic distance of 47kb (due to alternative splicing)) and -0.32 {+/-}0.04 for low-frequency positive-LD H3K27ac 0-1kb SNP pairs. Consequently, SNP-heritability estimates were substantially smaller than estimates of the sum of causal effect size variances across all SNPs (ratio of 0.87 {+/-}0.02 across diseases/traits), particularly for certain functional annotations (e.g., 0.78 {+/-}0.01 for common Super enhancer SNPs)--even though these quantities are widely assumed to be equal. We recapitulated our findings via forward simulations with an evolutionary model involving stabilizing selection, implicating the action of linkage masking, whereby haplotypes containing linked SNPs with opposite effects on disease have reduced effects on fitness and escape negative selection.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantifying genetic effects on disease mediated by assayed gene expression levels 98%
- Functionally-informed fine-mapping and polygenic localization of complex trait heritability 98%
- Leveraging functional genomic annotations and genome coverage to improve polygenic prediction of complex traits within and between ancestries 98%
Similar papers in this journal
- Distinct explanations underlie gene-environment interactions in the UK Biobank 98%
- Localizing components of shared transethnic genetic architecture of complex traits from GWAS summary data 98%
- Estimation of non-additive genetic variance in human complex traits from a large sample of unrelated individuals 98%
Similar papers in this journal
- Testing and controlling for horizontal pleiotropy with the probabilistic Mendelian randomization in transcriptome-wide association studies 98%
- Population-specific causal disease effect sizes in functionally important regions impacted by selection 97%
- Quantifying portable genetic effects and improving cross-ancestry genetic prediction with GWAS summary statistics 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accurate detection of shared genetic architecture from GWAS summary statistics in the small-sample context 97%
- Enhancing Portability of Trans-Ancestral Polygenic Risk Scores through Tissue-Specific Functional Genomic Data Integration 97%
- From individuals to ancestries: towards attributing trait variation to haplotypes 96%
"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.