Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGSs), which assess the genetic risk of individuals for a disease, are calculated as a weighted count of risk alleles identified in genome-wide association studies (GWASs). PGS methods differ in terms of which DNA variants are included in the score and the weights assigned to them. PGSs are evaluated in independent target samples of individuals with known disease status. Evaluation of new PGS methods are made using simulated data or single target cohort, however, in real data sets there can be heterogeneity between target sample cohorts, which could reflect a number of real or artefactual factors. The Psychiatric Genomics Consortium working groups for schizophrenia (SCZ) and major depressive disorder (MDD) bring together many independently collected case-control cohorts for GWAS meta-analysis. These resources are used here in repeated application of leave-one-cohort-out GWAS analyses, generating robust conclusions for PGS prediction applied across multiple target (left-out) cohorts. Eight PGS methods (P+T, SBLUP, LDpred-Inf, LDpred-funct, LDpred, PRS-CS, PRS-CS-auto, SBayesR) are compared. We found that SBayesR had the highest prediction evaluation statistics in most comparisons. For SCZ across 30 target cohorts, the SBayesR PGS achieved a mean area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.733, and explained 9.9% of variance on the liability scale. For MDD across 26 target cohorts, the AUC and variance explained were 0.601 and 4.0%, respectively. The variance explained by the SBayesR PGS was 46% and 43% higher for SCZ and MDD, respectively, compared to the basic p-value thresholding P+T method.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We acknowledge funding from the National health and Medical Research Council (1173790,1078901,108788 (NRW),1113400 (NRW, PMV)) and the Australian Research Council (FL180100072 (PMV)). The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (U01 MH109528 and U01 MH1095320). The Muenster cohort was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, grant FOR2107 DA1151/5-1 and DA1151/5-2 to U.D.; SFB-TRR58, Projects C09 and Z02 to U.D.) and the Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF) of the medical faculty of Muenster (grant Dan3/012/17 to U.D.). Some data used in this study were obtained from dbGaP. dbGaP accession phs000021: funding support for the Genome-Wide Association of Schizophrenia Study was provided by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH67257, R01 MH59588, R01 MH59571, R01 MH59565, R01 MH59587, R01 MH60870, R01 MH59566, R01 MH59586, R01 MH61675, R01 MH60879, R01 MH81800, U01 MH46276, U01 MH46289, U01 MH46318, U01 MH79469, and U01 MH79470) , and the genotyping of samples was provided through the Genetic Association Information Network (GAIN). Samples and associated phenotype data for the Genome-Wide Association of Schizophrenia Study were provided by the Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia Collaboration (principal investigator P. V. Gejman, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (ENH) and Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA). dbGaP accession phs000196: this work used in part data from the NINDS dbGaP database from the CIDR: NGRC PARKINSON'S DISEASE STUDY. dbGaP accession phs000187: High-Density SNP Association Analysis of Melanoma: Case-Control and Outcomes Investigation. Research support to collect data and develop an application to support this project was provided by P50 CA093459, P50 CA097007, R01 ES011740, and R01 CA133996 from the NIH. Statistical analyses were carried out on the Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org) hosted by SURFsara and financially supported by the Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO 480-05-003) along with a supplement from the Dutch Brain Foundation and the VU University Amsterdam.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol used by 23andMe was approved by an external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board. Some data used in this study were obtained from dbGaP.Research support to collect data and develop an application to support this project was provided by P50 CA093459, P50 CA097007, R01 ES011740, and R01 CA133996 from the NIH.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets stored in the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium central server follow strict guidelines with local ethics committee approval.
