Back

Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Score classifies diabetes subtypes in Indians: Impact of HLA diversity on the lower discriminative ability

Sankareswaran, A.; Kunte, P.; Fraser, D. P.; Shaik, M.; Weedon, M. N.; Oram, R. A.; Yajnik, C. S.; Chandak, G. R.

2024-08-31 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.08.31.24312873 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesGenetic Risk scores (GRS) classify diabetes types, type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) in Europeans but the power is limited in other ancestries. We explored the performance of T1DGRS and potential reasons for inferior discrimination ability in diabetes-type classification in Indians. Research Design and MethodsIn a well-characterized Indian cohort comprising 645 clinically diagnosed T1D, 1153 T2D and 327 controls, we estimated the discriminative ability of T1DGRS (comprising 67 SNPs from Europeans) using receiver operating characteristics-area under the curve (ROC-AUC). We also compared the islet autoantibody status (AA), frequency and effect size of various HLA alleles/haplotypes between Indians and Europeans. ResultsThe T1DGRS was discriminative of T1D from T2D and controls but the ability is lower in Indians than Europeans (AUC=0.83 vs 0.92 respectively, p<0.0001). The T1DGRS was higher in AA-positive patients compared to AA-negative patients [13.01 (12.79-13.23) vs 12.09 (11.64-12.56)], p<0.0001) and showed greater discrimination in the AA-positive T1D (ROC-AUC 0.85). While association of common HLA-DQA1[~]HLA-DQB1 haplotypes with T1D is replicated, important differences in the risk allele frequency, nature/direction and magnitude of association between Indians and Europeans were noted. ConclusionsA T1DGRS derived from Europeans is discriminative of T1D in Indians, highlighting similarity in heritability of T1D. Differences in allele frequency, effect size and directionality, especially in the HLA region are important contributors to inferior discrimination performance of T1DGRS in Indians. Further studies of diverse populations may improve its performance.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.6%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Diabetes Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
6
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
7
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
8
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
9
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
10
Diabetes
53 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
11
Human Genomics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
12
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
13
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
14
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
17
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
18
Genes & Immunity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
19
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%
22
Molecular Metabolism
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
24
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.5%