Breedon Joshua R, Marshall Charles R, Giovannoni Gavin, van Heel David A, Dobson Ruth, Jacobs Benjamin M
Preventive Neurology Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Department of Neurology, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1FR, UK.
Brain Commun. 2023 Feb 22;5(2):fcad041. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcad041. eCollection 2023.
Polygenic risk scores aggregate an individual's burden of risk alleles to estimate the overall genetic risk for a specific trait or disease. Polygenic risk scores derived from genome-wide association studies of European populations perform poorly for other ancestral groups. Given the potential for future clinical utility, underperformance of polygenic risk scores in South Asian populations has the potential to reinforce health inequalities. To determine whether European-derived polygenic risk scores underperform at multiple sclerosis prediction in a South Asian-ancestry population compared with a European-ancestry cohort, we used data from two longitudinal genetic cohort studies: Genes & Health (2015-present), a study of ∼50 000 British-Bangladeshi and British-Pakistani individuals, and UK Biobank (2006-present), which is comprised of ∼500 000 predominantly White British individuals. We compared individuals with and without multiple sclerosis in both studies (Genes & Health: = 42, = 40 490; UK Biobank: = 2091, = 374 866). Polygenic risk scores were calculated using clumping and thresholding with risk allele effect sizes obtained from the largest multiple sclerosis genome-wide association study to date. Scores were calculated with and without the major histocompatibility complex region, the most influential locus in determining multiple sclerosis risk. Polygenic risk score prediction was evaluated using Nagelkerke's pseudo- metric adjusted for case ascertainment, age, sex and the first four genetic principal components. We found that, as expected, European-derived polygenic risk scores perform poorly in the Genes & Health cohort, explaining 1.1% (including the major histocompatibility complex) and 1.5% (excluding the major histocompatibility complex) of disease risk. In contrast, multiple sclerosis polygenic risk scores explained 4.8% (including the major histocompatibility complex) and 2.8% (excluding the major histocompatibility complex) of disease risk in European-ancestry UK Biobank participants. These findings suggest that polygenic risk score prediction of multiple sclerosis based on European genome-wide association study results is less accurate in a South Asian population. Genetic studies of ancestrally diverse populations are required to ensure that polygenic risk scores can be useful across ancestries.
多基因风险评分汇总个体的风险等位基因负担,以估计特定性状或疾病的总体遗传风险。源自欧洲人群全基因组关联研究的多基因风险评分在其他祖先群体中表现不佳。鉴于未来临床应用的潜力,多基因风险评分在南亚人群中的表现不佳有可能加剧健康不平等。为了确定与欧洲血统队列相比,源自欧洲的多基因风险评分在预测南亚血统人群的多发性硬化症方面是否表现不佳,我们使用了两项纵向遗传队列研究的数据:基因与健康研究(2015年至今),一项对约50000名英裔孟加拉人和英裔巴基斯坦人的研究,以及英国生物银行(2006年至今),该银行由约500000名主要为英国白人的个体组成。我们在两项研究中比较了患有和未患有多发性硬化症的个体(基因与健康研究:病例数 = 42,对照数 = 40490;英国生物银行:病例数 = 2091,对照数 = 374866)。多基因风险评分使用聚类和阈值法计算,风险等位基因效应大小来自迄今为止最大的多发性硬化症全基因组关联研究。评分在包含和不包含主要组织相容性复合体区域(在确定多发性硬化症风险中最具影响力的基因座)的情况下进行计算。多基因风险评分预测使用经病例确诊、年龄、性别和前四个遗传主成分调整的Nagelkerke伪R平方度量进行评估。我们发现,正如预期的那样,源自欧洲的多基因风险评分在基因与健康队列中表现不佳,解释了1.1%(包括主要组织相容性复合体)和1.5%(不包括主要组织相容性复合体)的疾病风险。相比之下,多发性硬化症多基因风险评分在欧洲血统的英国生物银行参与者中解释了4.8%(包括主要组织相容性复合体)和2.8%(不包括主要组织相容性复合体)的疾病风险。这些发现表明,基于欧洲全基因组关联研究结果的多发性硬化症多基因风险评分预测在南亚人群中不太准确。需要对不同祖先群体进行遗传研究,以确保多基因风险评分在不同血统中都有用。