4.8 Article

Signatures of negative selection in the genetic architecture of human complex traits

Journal

NATURE GENETICS
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 746-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0101-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Queensland's Research Computing Centre (RCC)
  2. Australian Research Council [DP160101343, DP160101056, DP160103860, DP160102400]
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [1107258, 1078901, 1078037, 1083656, 1078399, 1046880, 1113400]
  4. US National Institutes of Health [MH100141, GM099568, ES025052, AG042568]
  5. Sylvia & Charles Viertel Charitable Foundation (Senior Medical Research Fellowship)
  6. ERC consolidator grant [647648 EdGe]
  7. UK10K project [EGAS00001000108, EGAS00001000090]
  8. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1078399] Funding Source: NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We develop a Bayesian mixed linear model that simultaneously estimates single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based heritability, polygenicity (proportion of SNPs with nonzero effects), and the relationship between SNP effect size and minor allele frequency for complex traits in conventionally unrelated individuals using genome-wide SNP data. We apply the method to 28 complex traits in the UK Biobank data (N = 126,752) and show that on average, 6% of SNPs have nonzero effects, which in total explain 22% of phenotypic variance. We detect significant (P < 0.05/28) signatures of natural selection in the genetic architecture of 23 traits, including reproductive, cardiovascular, and anthropometric traits, as well as educational attainment. The significant estimates of the relationship between effect size and minor allele frequency in complex traits are consistent with a model of negative (or purifying) selection, as confirmed by forward simulation. We conclude that negative selection acts pervasively on the genetic variants associated with human complex traits.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available