Combining polygenic risk scores to understand genetic liability to physical-mental health multimorbidity in UK BioBank
Stow, D.; Tsang, R. S. M.; Katzourou, I. K.; Underwood, J. F. G.; The LIfespaN multimorbidity research Collaborative (LINC), ; Holmans, P.; Barroso, I.; Martin, H. C.; van den Bree, M. B. M.; Finer, S.; Timpson, N. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundInternalising and CardioMetabolic MultiMorbidity (ICM-MM) is a common form of mental-physical health multimorbidity, yet its genetic predisposition is largely unknown. We examined the polygenic nature of ICM-MM by assessing single trait-specific polygenic risk scores (PRSTRAIT) and whether combining them could increase the proportion of variance in liability to ICM-MM explained by genetic variation. MethodsWe developed PRSTRAIT using PRS-CS and summary statistics from the largest trait-specific GWAS excluding UK Biobank (UKB). We evaluated PRSTRAIT on ICM-MM risk in 206,452 UKB participants (n=39,311 (19.0%) with ICM-MM) using logistic regression adjusted for gender and 10 genetic principal components, defining ICM-MM as lifetime occurrence of: [≥]1 internalising (depression, anxiety, somatoform disorder) traits AND [≥]1 cardiometabolic traits (type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease). We trained an elastic net in a 50% subsample to generate ICM-MM-PRSTRAIT: a weighted combination of PRSTRAIT targeting ICM-MM. ResultsThe strongest associations were between ICM-MM and PRSTRAIT for depression and type 2 diabetes - both odds ratios (OR) 1.18, [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.20] per standard deviation increase in PRSTRAIT. ICM-MM-PRSTRAIT retained five PRSTRAIT with stronger associations (OR=1.31, [95%CI 1.29-1.34]) than any PRSTRAIT in the validation sample. DiscussionCombining several PRS explains more variance in ICM-MM liability than single-trait PRSs alone. ICM-MM-PRSTRAIT is a measure of genetic risk that could be used to examine premorbid stages of ICM-MM in external and youth cohorts, supporting awareness of earlier presentation and potentially avoidance or intervention.
Matching journals
The top 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Multivariate Genome-Wide Association Study Reveals Neural Correlates and Common Biological Mechanisms of Psychopathology Spectra 91%
- Integrating HiTOP and RDoC Frameworks Part II: Shared and Distinct Biological Mechanisms of Externalizing and Internalizing Psychopathology 91%
- Multiomic prioritisation of risk genes for anorexia nervosa 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetically-proxied therapeutic inhibition of antihypertensive drug targets and risk of common cancers 92%
- Harnessing the power of polygenic risk scores to predict type 2 diabetes and its subtypes in a high-risk population of British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in a routine healthcare setting 92%
- Haplotype genetic score analysis in 10,734 mother/infant pairs reveals complex maternal and fetal genetic effects underlying the associations between maternal phenotypes, birth outcomes and adult phenotypes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Distinct metabolic features of genetic liability to type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a reverse Mendelian randomization study 93%
- A systematic analysis of the contribution of genetics to multimorbidity and comparisons with primary care data 93%
- Sedentary lifestyle, Physical Activity, and Gastrointestinal Diseases: Evidence from Mendelian Randomization Analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Educational attainment as a modifier of the effect of polygenic scores for cardiovascular risk factors: cross-sectional and prospective analysis of UK Biobank 94%
- Genetic Risk Scores for Cardiometabolic Traits in Sub-Saharan African Populations 93%
- High-throughput multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis prioritizes apolipoprotein B as key lipid risk factor for coronary artery disease 92%
"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.