4.7 Article

Leveraging both individual-level genetic data and GWAS summary statistics increases polygenic prediction

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages 1001-1011

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.04.014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Lundbeck Foundation [R102-A9118, R155-2014-1724, R335-2019-2339, R2482017-2003]
  2. Danish National Research Foundation (Niels Bohr Professorship)
  3. GenomeDK
  4. Aarhus University
  5. Lundbeck Foundation [335-2019-2339] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research shows that in the presence of large individual-level data, the linear combination of polygenic risk scores (meta-PRS) is a simpler and often more accurate alternative to meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics (meta-GWAS).
The accuracy of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to predict complex diseases increases with the training sample size. PRSs are generally derived based on summary statistics from large meta-analyses of multiple genome-wide association studies (GWASs). However, it is now common for researchers to have access to large individual-level data as well, such as the UK Biobank data. To the best of our knowledge, it has not yet been explored how best to combine both types of data (summary statistics and individual-level data) to optimize polygenic prediction. The most widely used approach to combine data is the meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics (meta-GWAS), but we show that it does not always provide the most accurate PRS. Through simulations and using 12 real case-control and quantitative traits from both iPSYCH and UK Biobank along with external GWAS summary statistics, we compare meta-GWAS with two alternative data-combining approaches, stacked clumping and thresholding (SCT) and meta-PRS. We find that, when large individual-level data are available, the linear combination of PRSs (meta-PRS) is both a simple alternative to meta-GWAS and often more accurate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available