Back

The impact of rare pathogenic CNVs is exacerbated by assortative mating.

Cevallos, C.; Auwerx, C.; Hofmeister, R.; Cavinato, T.; Schoeler, T.; Kutalik, Z.; Reymond, A.

2025-09-12 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.09.08.25335316 medRxiv
Show abstract

Copy-number variants (CNVs) are linked to a spectrum of outcomes and carriers of the same variant exhibit variable disease severity. We explored the impact of an individuals polygenic score (PGS) on explaining these differences, focusing on 119 established CNV-trait associations involving 43 clinically-relevant phenotypes. We called CNVs among white British UK Biobank participants, then divided samples into a training set (n = 264,372) to derive independent PGS weights, and a CNV-carrier-enriched test set (n = 96,716) for which PGSs were evaluated. Assessing the individual, joint, and synergistic contribution of CNVs and PGS, we identified a significant additive effect for 45 (38%) CNV-trait pairs but no evidence for interactions. A (spurious) negative correlation between an individuals CNV carrier status and their PGS would be expected under selective participation-induced collider bias. Instead, we observed a widespread positive correlation, which could only be partially accounted for by linkage disequilibrium. Given a non-null inheritance rate for all 17 testable CNVs, we explored whether assortative mating could explain the positive CNV-PGS association. We found strong agreement between this correlation and the one predicted by assortment (r = 0.45, p = 3.9 x 10-7). Similar trends of positive correlation were observed between PGS and genome-wide burden of CNVs or rare loss-of-function variants. Our results suggest that PGSs contribute to the variable expressivity of CNVs and rare variants, and improve the identification of those at higher risk of clinically relevant comorbidities. We also highlight pervasive assortative mating as a likely mechanism contributing to the compounding of genetic effects across mutational classes.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
46.2%
2
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
15.3%
50% of probability mass above
3
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.6%
4
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
5
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.7%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
7
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
8
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
9
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 37%
1.3%
10
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
11
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 52%
0.9%
12
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
13
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
14
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
15
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
17
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
18
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
19
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.5%
20
Human Genetics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
21
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
22
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%