Biology subjects

Glanville, K. P.

Publications and source records attributed to Glanville, K. P..

5 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2020

Imputed Gene Expression Risk Scores: A Functionally Informed Component of Polygenic Risk

BackgroundIntegration of functional genomic annotations when estimating polygenic risk scores (PRS) can provide insight into aetiology and improve risk prediction. This study explores the predictive utility of gene expression risk scores (GeRS), calculated using imputed gene expression and transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) results. MethodsThe predictive utility of GeRS was evaluated using 12 neuropsychiatric and anthropometric outcomes measured in two target samples: UK Biobank and the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). GeRS were calculated based on imputed gene expression levels and TWAS results, using 53 gene expression-genotype panels, termed SNP-weight sets, capturing expression across a range of tissues. We compare the predictive utility of elastic net models containing GeRS within and across SNP-weight sets, and models containing both GeRS and PRS. We estimate the proportion of SNP-based heritability attributable to cis-regulated gene expression. ResultsGeRS significantly predicted a range of outcomes, with elastic net models combining GeRS across SNP-weight sets improving prediction. GeRS were less predictive than PRS, but models combining GeRS and PRS improved prediction for several outcomes, with relative improvements ranging from 0.3% for Height (p=0.023) to 4% for Rheumatoid Arthritis (p=5.9x10-8). The proportion of SNP-based heritability attributable to cis-regulated expression was modest for most outcomes, even when restricting GeRS to colocalised genes. ConclusionGeRS represent a component of PRS and could be useful for functional stratification of genetic risk. Only in specific circumstances can GeRS substantially improve prediction over PRS alone. Future research considering functional genomic annotations when estimating genetic risk is warranted.

genomics↗

bioRxiv2020

Evaluation of Polygenic Prediction Methodology within a Reference-Standardized Framework

BackgroundThe predictive utility of polygenic scores is increasing, and many polygenic scoring methods are available, but it is unclear which method performs best. This study evaluates the predictive utility of polygenic scoring methods within a reference-standardized framework, which uses a common set of variants and reference-based estimates of linkage disequilibrium and allele frequencies to construct scores. MethodsEight polygenic score methods were tested: p-value thresholding and clumping (pT+clump), SBLUP, lassosum, LDPred1, LDPred2, PRScs, DBSLMM and SBayesR, evaluating their performance to predict outcomes in UK Biobank and the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). Strategies to identify optimal p-value threshold and shrinkage parameters were compared, including 10-fold cross validation, pseudovalidation and infinitesimal models (with no validation sample), and multi-polygenic score elastic net models. ResultsLDPred2, lassosum and PRScs performed strongly using 10-fold cross-validation to identify the most predictive p-value threshold or shrinkage parameter, giving a relative improvement of 16-18% over pT+clump in the correlation between observed and predicted outcome values. Using pseudovalidation, the best methods were PRScs and DBSLMM, with a relative improvement of >10% over other pseudovalidation and infinitesimal methods (lassosum, SBLUP, SBayesR, LDPred1, LDPred2). PRScs pseudovalidation was only 3% worse than the best polygenic score identified by 10-fold cross validation. Elastic net models containing polygenic scores based on a range of parameters consistently improved prediction over any single polygenic score. ConclusionWithin a reference-standardized framework, the best polygenic prediction was achieved using LDPred2, lassosum and PRScs, modeling multiple polygenic scores derived using multiple parameters. This study will help researchers performing polygenic score studies to select the most powerful and predictive analysis methods.

genomics↗

bioRxiv2020

Using Major Depression Polygenic Risk Scores to Explore the Depressive Symptom Continuum

BackgroundIt is not clear whether major depression (MD) is a categorical disorder or if depressive symptoms exist on a continuum based on severity. Observational studies comparing sub-threshold and clinical depression suggest MD is continuous, but many do not explore the full continuum and are yet to consider genetics as a risk factor. This study sought to understand if polygenic risk for MD could provide insight into the continuous nature of MD. MethodsFactor analysis on symptom-level data from the UK Biobank (N=148,957) was used to derive continuous depression phenotypes which were tested for association with polygenic risk scores for a categorical definition of MD (N=119,692). ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis showed a five-factor hierarchical model, incorporating 15 of the original 18 items, produced good fit to the observed covariance matrix (CFI = 0.992, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.038, SRMR = 0.031). MD PRS associated with each factor score (standardised {beta} range: 0.057 - 0.064) and the association remained when the sample was stratified into case- and control-only subsets. The case-only subset had an increased association compared to controls for all factors, shown via a significant interaction between lifetime MD diagnosis and MD PRS (p-value range: 2.28x10-3 - 4.56x10-7). ConclusionsAn association between MD PRS and a continuous phenotype of depressive symptoms in case- and control-only subsets provides support against a purely categorical phenotype; indicating further insights into MD can be obtained when this within-group variation is considered. The stronger association within cases suggests this variation may be of particular importance.

genetics↗

bioRxiv2019

Identifying Potential Causal Risk Factors for Self-Harm: A Polygenic Risk Scoring and Mendelian Randomisation Approach

BackgroundMultiple individual vulnerabilities and traits are phenotypically associated with suicidal and non-suicidal self-harm. However, associations between these risk factors and self-harm are subject to confounding. We implemented genetically informed methods to better identify individual risk factors for self-harm.\n\nMethodsUsing genotype data and online Mental Health Questionnaire responses in the UK Biobank sample (N = 125,925), polygenic risk scores (PRS) were generated to index 24 plausible individual risk factors for self-harm in the following domains: mental health vulnerabilities, substance use phenotypes, cognitive traits, personality traits and physical traits. PRS were entered as predictors in binomial regression models to predict self-harm. Multinomial regressions were used to model suicidal and non-suicidal self-harm. To further probe the causal nature of these relationships, two-sample Mendelian Randomisation (MR) analyses were conducted for significant risk factors identified in PRS analyses.\n\nOutcomesSelf-harm was predicted by PRS indexing six individual risk factors, which are major depressive disorder (MDD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcohol dependence disorder (ALC) and lifetime cannabis use. Effect sizes ranged from {beta} = 0.044 (95% CI: 0.016 to 0.152) for PRS for lifetime cannabis use, to {beta} = 0.179 (95% CI: 0.152 to 0.207) for PRS for MDD. No systematic distinctions emerged between suicidal and non-suicidal self-harm. In follow-up MR analyses, MDD, ADHD and schizophrenia emerged as plausible causal risk factors for self-harm.\n\nInterpretationAmong a range of potential risk factors leading to self-harm, core predictors were found among psychiatric disorders. In addition to MDD, liabilities for schizophrenia and ADHD increased the risk for self-harm. Detection and treatment of core symptoms of these conditions, such as psychotic or impulsivity symptoms, may benefit self-harming patients.\n\nFundingLim is funded by Kings International Postgraduate Research Scholarship. Dr Pingault is funded by grant MQ16IP16 from MQ: Transforming Mental Health. Dr Coleman is supported by the UK National Institute of Health Research Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre. MRC grant MR/N015746/1 to CML and PFOR. Dr Hagenaars is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/S0151132). Kylie P. Glanville is funded by the UK Medical Research Council (PhD studentship; grant MR/N015746/1). This paper represents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.\n\nResearch in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSA search was conducted on PubMed for literature from inception until 1st May 2019 using terms related to suicidal self-harm (SSH) and non-suicidal self-harm (NSSH), as well as polygenic risk scores (PRS), (\"self-harm\"[All Fields] OR \"self-injurious\"[All Fields] OR \"self-mutilation\"[All Fields] OR \"suicide\"[All Fields]) AND (\"polygenic\"[All Fields] OR \"multifactorial inheritance\"[All Fields]). Similar search was done for Mendelian Randomisation (MR), replacing \"multifactorial inheritance\" and \"polygenic\" with \"Mendelian Randomisation/Randomization\". Evidence was included only if the study had used PRS or MR method to predict self-harm phenotypes using risk factors of self-harm. Ten papers for PRS and no paper for MR were identified.\n\nThere were mixed results for PRS studies. PRS for MDD predicted SSH in two studies but not in another two studies. PRS for depressive symptoms predicted SSH but not NSSH. PRS for schizophrenia predicted SSH in one but not in another two studies. PRS for bipolar disorder predicted SSH in one study but did not predict SSH nor NSSH in another two studies.\n\nAdded value of this studyBy using a large population-based sample, we systematically studied individual vulnerabilities and traits that can potentially lead to self-harm, including mental health vulnerabilities, substance use phenotypes, cognitive traits, personality traits and physical traits, summing up to 24 PRS as genetic proxies for 24 risk factors. We conducted MR to strengthen causal inference. We further distinguished non-suicidal self-harm (NSSH) and suicidal self-harm (SSH).\n\nApart from PRS for schizophrenia, MDD and bipolar disorder, novel PRS were also identified to be associated with self-harm, which are PRS for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), cannabis use and alcohol dependence. A larger sample size allowed us to confirm positive findings from the previously mixed literature regarding the associations between PRS for MDD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia with self-harm. Multivariate analyses and MR analyses strengthened the evidence implicating MDD, ADHD and schizophrenia as plausible causal risk factors for self-harm.\n\nImplications of all the available evidenceAmong the 24 risk factors considered, plausible causal risk factors for self-harm were identified among psychiatric conditions. Using PRS and MR methods and a number of complementary analyses provided higher confidence to infer causality and nuanced insights into the aetiology of self-harm. From a clinical perspective, detection and treatment of core symptoms of these conditions, such as psychotic or impulsivity symptoms, may prevent individuals from self-harming.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2018

Genetic variation in the Major Histocompatibility Complex and association with depression

BackgroundThe prevalence of depression is higher in individuals suffering from autoimmune diseases, but the mechanisms underlying the observed comorbidities are unknown. Epidemiological findings point to a bi-directional relationship - that depression increases the risk of developing an autoimmune disease, and vice-versa. Shared genetic etiology is a plausible explanation for the overlap between depression and autoimmune diseases. In this study we tested whether genetic variation in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC), which is associated with risk for autoimmune diseases, is also associated with risk for depression.\n\nMethodWe fine-mapped the classical MHC (chr6: 29.6-33.1 Mb), imputing 216 Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) alleles and four Complement Component 4 (C4) haplotypes in studies from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) working group and the UK Biobank (UKB). In the 26 PGC-MDD studies, cases met a lifetime diagnosis of MDD, determined by a structured diagnostic interview. In the UKB, cases and controls were identified from an online mental health questionnaire. The total sample size was 45,149 depression cases and 86,698 controls. We tested for association between depression status and imputed MHC variants in each study and performed an inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis across the PGC-MDD and UKB samples, applying both a conservative region-wide significance threshold (3.9-e6) and a candidate threshold (1.6e-4).\n\nResultsNo HLA alleles or C4 haplotypes were associated with depression at the conservative threshold in the PGC, UKB or meta-analysis. HLA-B*08:01 was associated with modest protection for depression at the candidate threshold in the meta-analysis. Under the conservative threshold, 70 SNPs were detected in the UKB and 143 SNPs were detected in the meta-analysis, mirroring previous findings from highly powered GWAS of depression.\n\nDiscussionWe found no evidence that HLA alleles, which play a major role in the genetic susceptibility to autoimmune diseases, or C4 haplotypes, which are strongly associated with schizophrenia, confer risk for depression. These results indicate that autoimmune diseases and depression do not share common risk loci of moderate or large effect in the MHC.

genetics↗