Linner, R. K. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2023

Guidelines for Evaluating the Comparability of Down-Sampled GWAS Summary Statistics

Proprietary genetic datasets are valuable for boosting the statistical power of genome-wide association studies (GWASs), but their use can restrict investigators from publicly sharing the resulting summary statistics. Although researchers can resort to sharing down-sampled versions that exclude restricted data, down-sampling reduces power and might change the genetic etiology of the phenotype being studied. These problems are further complicated when using multivariate GWAS methods, such as genomic structural equation modeling (Genomic SEM), that model genetic correlations across multiple traits. Here, we propose a systematic approach to assess the comparability of GWAS summary statistics that include versus exclude restricted data. Illustrating this approach with a multivariate GWAS of an externalizing factor, we assessed the impact of down-sampling on (1) the strength of the genetic signal in univariate GWASs, (2) the factor loadings and model fit in multivariate Genomic SEM, (3) the strength of the genetic signal at the factor level, (4) insights from gene-property analyses, (5) the pattern of genetic correlations with other traits, and (6) polygenic score analyses in independent samples. For the externalizing GWAS, down-sampling resulted in a loss of genetic signal and fewer genome-wide significant loci, while the factor loadings and model fit, gene-property analyses, genetic correlations, and polygenic score analyses are robust. Given the importance of data sharing for the advancement of open science, we recommend that investigators who share down-sampled summary statistics report these analyses as accompanying documentation to support other researchers use of the summary statistics.

genetics↗

bioRxiv2021

Resource Profile and User Guide of the Polygenic Index Repository

Polygenic indexes (PGIs) are DNA-based predictors. Their value for research in many scientific disciplines is rapidly growing. As a resource for researchers, we used a consistent methodology to construct PGIs for 47 phenotypes in 11 datasets. To maximize the PGIs prediction accuracies, we constructed them using genome-wide association studies--some of which are novel--from multiple data sources, including 23andMe and UK Biobank. We present a theoretical framework to help interpret analyses involving PGIs. A key insight is that a PGI can be understood as an unbiased but noisy measure of a latent variable we call the "additive SNP factor." Regressions in which the true regressor is the additive SNP factor but the PGI is used as its proxy therefore suffer from errors-in-variables bias. We derive an estimator that corrects for the bias, illustrate the correction, and make a Python tool for implementing it publicly available.

genomics↗