Design and model choices shape inference of age-varying genetic effects on complex traits
Schoeler, T.; Wiegrebe, S.; Winkler, T. W.; Kutalik, Z.
Show abstract
Understanding how genetic influences on complex traits change with age is a fundamental question in genetic epidemiology. Both cross-sectional (between-subject) and longitudinal (within-subject) approaches can contribute to answering this question, but come with distinct strengths and limitations. Using data from 31 health-related phenotypes in the UK Biobank, we applied a two-stage genome-wide approach to identify genetic variants exhibiting age-dependent effects. To assess the robustness of these findings, we tested for variant-specific results across multiple analytical models, and linked these to differences in key methodological assumptions. Within this framework, we systematically compared the results from cross-sectional gene-by-age interaction models (up to 406,226 individuals) with those from genetic association tests on longitudinal change (up to 83,579 individuals with repeat measurements), and investigated potential sources of bias underlying any observed discrepancies. We found high concordance in the direction of age-varying genetic effects across the two designs (85.96% of the 57 identified variants), but only moderate agreement in magnitude of effect sizes (Pearson r = 0.74). Gene-by-birth year effects, which bias cross-sectional estimates, accounted for the largest proportion of variance in effect size differences across SNPs with age-varying effects between designs (53.1%). Participation bias accounted for an additional 13.3%, while unmodeled non-linear age trajectories contributed minimally to these differences (2.1%). Overall, our results demonstrate that both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs can yield different estimates of age-varying genetic effects, principally due to cohort confounding and participation bias. As neither approach is immune to bias, we recommend integrating both designs for robust inference, to help minimize bias and more accurately characterize how genetic effects on complex traits change over the lifespan.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Using deep learning to predict age from liver and pancreas magnetic resonance images allows the identification of genetic and non-genetic factors associated with abdominal aging 94%
- Lifetime brain atrophy estimated from a single MRI: measurement characteristics and genome-wide correlates 94%
- The impact of non-additive genetic associations on age-related complex diseases. 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of 18 months lifestyle intervention on brain age assessed with resting-state functional connectivity 95%
- A mathematical model that predicts human biological age from physiological traits identifies environmental and genetic factors that influence aging 95%
- voyAGEr: free web interface for the analysis of age-related gene expression alterations in human tissues 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Meta-regression of Genome-Wide Association Studies to estimate age-varying genetic effects 94%
- The effect of long-term adherence to physical activity recommendations in midlife on plasma proteins associated with frailty in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study 92%
- Exploring domains, clinical implications and environmental associations of a deep learning marker of biological ageing 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Association between allostatic load and accelerated white matter brain aging: findings from the UK Biobank 93%
- Testing DNA-methylation and blood-chemistry measures of biological aging in models of Black-White disparities in healthspan characteristics 92%
- A structural mean modelling Mendelian randomization approach to investigate the lifecourse effect of adiposity: applied and methodological considerations 90%
"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.