4.7 Article

Generalizability of GWAS Hits'' in Clinical Populations: Lessons from Childhood Cancer Survivors

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 107, 期 4, 页码 636-653

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [U24 CA55727, U01 CA195547, CA21765, R01 CA216354]
  2. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities
  3. Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With mounting interest in translating genome-wide association study (GWAS) hits from large meta-analyses (meta-GWAS) in diverse clinical settings, evaluating their generalizability in target populations is crucial. Here, we consider long-term survivors of childhood cancers from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study, and we show the limited generalizability of 1,376 robust SNP associations reported in the general population across 12 complex anthropometric and cardiometabolic phenotypes (n = 2,231; observed-to-expected replication ratio = 0.70, p = 6.2 x 10(-8)). An examination of five comparable phenotypes in a second independent cohort of survivors from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study corroborated the overall limited generalizability of meta-GWAS hits to survivors (n = 4,212; observed-to-expected replication ratio = 0.55, p = 5.6 x 10(-15)). Finally, in direct comparisons of survivor samples against independent equivalently powered general population samples from the UK Biobank, we consistently observed lower meta-GWAS hit replication rates and poorer polygenic risk score predictive performance in survivor samples for multiple phenotypes. As a possible explanation, we found that meta-GWAS hits were less likely to be replicated in survivors who had been exposed to cancer therapies that are associated with phenotype risk. Examination of complementary DNA methylation data in a subset of survivors revealed that treatment-related methylation patterns at genomic sites linked to meta-GWAS hits may disrupt established genetic signals in survivors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据