Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.
Hum Genet. 2012 Jul;131(7):1057-71. doi: 10.1007/s00439-011-1124-4. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
It is not well known whether genetic markers identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) confer similar or different risks across people of different ancestry. We screened a regularly updated catalog of all published GWAS curated at the NHGRI website for GWAS-identified associations that had reached genome-wide significance (p ≤ 5 × 10(-8)) in at least one major ancestry group (European, Asian, African) and for which replication data were available for comparison in at least two different major ancestry groups. These groups were compared for the correlation between and differences in risk allele frequencies and genetic effects' estimates. Data on 108 eligible GWAS-identified associations with a total of 900 datasets (European, n = 624; Asian, n = 217; African, n = 60) were analyzed. Risk-allele frequencies were modestly correlated between ancestry groups, with >10% absolute differences in 75-89% of the three pairwise comparisons of ancestry groups. Genetic effect (odds ratio) point estimates between ancestry groups correlated modestly (pairwise comparisons' correlation coefficients: 0.20-0.33) and point estimates of risks were opposite in direction or differed more than twofold in 57%, 79%, and 89% of the European versus Asian, European versus African, and Asian versus African comparisons, respectively. The modest correlations, differing risk estimates, and considerable between-association heterogeneity suggest that differential ancestral effects can be anticipated and genomic risk markers may need separate further evaluation in different ancestry groups.
尚不清楚通过全基因组关联研究(GWAS)确定的遗传标记是否在不同祖先背景的人群中具有相似或不同的风险。我们筛选了 NHGRI 网站上定期更新的所有已发表 GWAS 目录,以寻找在至少一个主要祖先群体(欧洲、亚洲、非洲)中达到全基因组显著性(p ≤ 5 × 10(-8))的 GWAS 鉴定关联,并在至少两个不同的主要祖先群体中获得了可用于比较的复制数据。这些群体被用来比较风险等位基因频率和遗传效应估计值之间的相关性和差异。分析了 108 项符合条件的 GWAS 鉴定关联,共涉及 900 个数据集(欧洲,n = 624;亚洲,n = 217;非洲,n = 60)。在不同的祖先群体之间,风险等位基因频率存在适度的相关性,在 75-89%的三个祖先群体之间的两两比较中,存在超过 10%的绝对差异。在不同的祖先群体之间,遗传效应(比值比)点估计值存在适度的相关性(两两比较的相关系数:0.20-0.33),并且在 57%、79%和 89%的欧洲与亚洲、欧洲与非洲以及亚洲与非洲的比较中,风险点估计值的方向相反或差异超过两倍。这种适度的相关性、不同的风险估计值和相当大的个体间关联异质性表明,预期会有不同的祖先效应,并且基因组风险标记可能需要在不同的祖先群体中进行单独的进一步评估。