Abstract
Understanding disease progression is of a high biological and clinical interest. Unlike disease susceptibility whose genetic basis has been abundantly studied, less is known about the genetics of disease progression and its overlap with disease susceptibility. Considering ten common diseases (N cases ranging from 17,152 to 99,666) across seven biobanks, we systematically compared the genetic architecture of susceptibility and progression, defined as disease-specific mortality. We identified only one locus significantly associated with disease-specific mortality and show that, at a similar sample size, more genome-wide significant loci can be identified in a GWAS of disease susceptibility. Variants that were significantly affecting disease susceptibility were weakly or not associated with disease-specific mortality. Moreover, susceptibility polygenic scores (PGSs) were weak predictor of disease-specific mortality while a PGS for general lifespan was significantly associated with disease-specific mortality for five out of ten diseases. We used theoretical derivation and simulation to propose plausible explanations for our empirical observations and account for potential index-event bias. Overall, our findings point to little similarity in genetic effects between disease susceptibility and disease-specific mortality and suggest that either larger sample sizes or different measures of progression are needed to identify the genetic underpinning of disease progression.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study has was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation programme under grant agreement No 101016775, European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant number 945733), and Academy of Finland fellowship grant N. 323116
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:
Ethics Committee of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District, North West Centre for Research Ethics Committee, Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics, Scotland A Research Ethics Committee and Centre for Ethics of the University of Tartu gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
