Back

Variance polygenic scores (vPGS) as a tool for studying gene-environment interactions associated with refractive error

He, X.; Terry, L.; Guggenheim, J.; The MyoTreat Network, ; UK Biobank Eye and Vision Consortium,

2026-05-07 ophthalmology
10.64898/2026.05.06.26352553 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeConventional polygenic scores predict an individuals phenotype based on their genetics. By contrast, variance polygenic scores (vPGS) quantify genetic predisposition to phenotypic variance. We tested the hypothesis that a vPGS for refractive error can identify individuals with increased susceptibility to environmental risk factors for myopia. MethodsSix vPGS construction strategies were evaluated in UK Biobank participants: three variance heterogeneity genome-wide association studies (vGWAS) methods and two reweighting schemes. vPGS performance was assessed using two metrics: (i) Diff - difference in phenotypic variance in vPGS decile one vs. ten; (ii) Spearman correlation of phenotypic variance vs. vPGS decile. The optimal vPGS was used to test for vPGS x time spent reading or vPGS x time spent outdoors interactions in children aged 15 years (ALSPAC cohort; n=3471). ResultsOf the vGWAS methods, conditional quantile regression outperformed SCAMPI and Levenes Test. Of the re-weighting schemes, LDpred2 outperformed pruning and thresholding (P+T). In an independent sample of UK Biobank participants (n=19470), the top-performing vPGS successfully stratified individuals into groups with increasing variance in refractive error, even after adjusting for a conventional PGS (Diff: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.64-3.47; Spearman correlation: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.43-0.93). However, in ALSPAC participants, there was minimal support for vPGS interactions with time reading (P=0.80) or time outdoors (P=0.89). ConclusionA novel vPGS successfully stratified individuals into groups with relatively high or low genetic susceptibility to refractive error variance. However, the vPGS could not identify individuals at enhanced risk from lifestyle risk factors for myopia.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.1%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
9.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Translational Vision Science & Technology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
6
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
7
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
8
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
Ophthalmology Science
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
10
Experimental Eye Research
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
11
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
12
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
15
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
16
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
18
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
20
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%