Recurrent stroke prediction by applying a stroke polygenic risk score in the Japanese population

Naoki Kojima, Masaru Koido, Yunye He, Yuka Shimmori, Tsuyoshi Hachiya, BioBank Japan, Stéphanie Debette, Yoichiro Kamatani
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.17.24309034

Abstract

Background Recently, various polygenic risk score (PRS)-based methods were developed to improve stroke prediction. However, current PRSs (including cross-ancestry PRS) poorly predict recurrent stroke. Here, we aimed to determine whether the best PRS for Japanese individuals can also predict stroke recurrence in this population by extensively comparing the methods and maximizing the predictive performance for stroke onset.

Methods We used data from the BioBank Japan (BBJ) 1st cohort (n=179,938) to derive and optimize the PRSs using a 10-fold cross-validation. We integrated the optimized PRSs for multiple traits, such as vascular risk factors and stroke subtypes to generate a single PRS using the meta-scoring approach (metaGRS). We used an independent BBJ 2nd cohort (n=41,929) as a test sample to evaluate the association of the metaGRS with stroke and recurrent stroke.

Results We analyzed recurrent stroke cases (n=174) and non-recurrent stroke controls (n=1,153) among subjects within the BBJ 2nd cohort. After adjusting for known risk factors, metaGRS was associated with stroke recurrence (adjusted OR per SD 1.18 [95% CI: 1.00–1.39, p=0.044]), although no significant correlation was observed with the published PRSs. We administered three distinct tests to consider the potential index event bias; however, the outcomes derived from these examinations did not provide any significant indication of the influence of index event bias. The high metaGRS group without a history of hypertension had a higher risk of stroke recurrence than that of the low metaGRS group (adjusted OR 2.24 [95% CI: 1.07–4.66, p=0.032]). However, this association was weak in the hypertension group (adjusted OR 1.21 [95% CI: 0.69–2.13, p=0.50]).

Conclusions The metaGRS developed in a Japanese cohort predicted stroke recurrence in an independent cohort of patients. In particular, it predicted an increased risk of recurrence among stroke patients without hypertension. These findings provide clues for additional genetic risk stratification and help in developing personalized strategies for stroke recurrence prevention.

Introduction

Stroke is a major cause of mortality in Japan, with 56,000 deaths reported in 2020.1 The conventional risk factors for stroke include hypertension, high waist-to-hip ratio, smoking, cardiac causes, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.2 In Japan, the stroke recurrence rate is up to 30–50% during 5-10 years of follow-up after the first stroke.3,4 Accordingly, it will be medically beneficial to stratify high-risk groups for recurrent stroke among those who have experienced a stroke to potentially generate more intensive secondary prevention strategies than current recommendations.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many disease-susceptibility variants associated with complex traits.5 A polygenic risk score (PRS) is the weighted summation of the individual genetic effects of these variants. Its weighting strategy varies depending on the construction method; traditionally, only significant variants are used in developing this score. The recently developed PRS methods involve non-significant variants and updated effect weights and consider the linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure. The development of PRS methods has helped stratify high-risk groups for complex traits,6–11 including stroke.12

Polygenic risk scores developed using the 32 genome-wide significant (p< 5.0×10-8) variants or 90 marginally associated (p<1.0×10-5) variants (PRS90) from the MEGASTROKE study12 are associated with stroke onset in subjects of European ancestry.12,13 The meta-scoring PRS approach (metaGRS) includes 3.2 million variants by combining PRSs for stroke subtypes, risk factors, and comorbidities by adjusting the effect weight via elastic-net logistic regression; this approach has an improved predictive performance for stroke compared to that of PRS90.14 MetaGRS can predict stroke incidence independent of environmental factors and could help motivate individuals with high genetic risk to make lifestyle changes for stroke prevention (although not yet implemented in clinical practice outside a research setting).15 The PRS shows reduced transferability between populations. Additionally, a PRS developed using various variants derived from Japanese GWAS successfully predicted stroke onset in the Japanese population.16,17 Most recently, the GIGASTROKE study proposed an integrated PRS approach among PRSs derived from populations of multiple ancestries using the metaGRS framework (iPGS), which showed a better predictive ability than the MEGASTROKE European or East Asian PRS.18 However, the PRS did not successfully predict stroke recurrence; for example, PRS32 and iPGS did not significantly predict stroke recurrence after adjusting for clinical comorbidities, with notably smaller effect sizes than for non-recurrent stroke.12,18 Furthermore, the potential effect of index event (also known as “collider”) bias that may distort the association of PRS was suspected.19,20

The optimal method to improve the predictive accuracy of PRS depends on the population- and trait-specific genetic architecture.21–30 Therefore, we compared different PRS methods and determined whether the best PRS can predict the onset of recurrent stroke in a Japanese population.

Methods

The workflow of this study is shown in Figure 1. This article follows the TRIPOD (Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guidelines.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Workflow

MEGASTROKE AIS summary statistics of European (EUR) studies were only used for PRS-CSx. 1000 Genomes Project super population samples (EAS or EUR) were used for the LD reference panel. Abbreviations: GWAS = genome-wide association study, PRS = polygenic risk score, P+T = pruning and thresholding, OR = odds ratio, AIS = all ischemic stroke, ToMMo = Tohoku Medical Megabank; LD, linkage disequilibrium.

We used a logistic regression model to assess the association of the PRS using the two case control settings for AIS (A: any-AIS vs. AIS-free controls) and AIS recurrence (B: recurrent AIS vs. non-recurrent AIS). We also applied two other combinations of case-controls (C: recurrent versus AIS-free controls and D: non-recurrent versus AIS-free controls).

Study subjects and quality control

BioBank Japan (BBJ) involves physicians diagnosing all ischemic stroke (AIS) cases at the collaborating hospitals. BBJ was established in 2003 and recruited 267,000 patients from 12 medical institutions (66 hospitals) in two phases.31–33 The recruited patients had at least one of the 51 primarily multifactorial (common) diseases, which accounted for 440,000 cases. We used BBJ 1st cohort (BBJ1) data to derive PRSs and available independent BBJ 2nd cohort (BBJ2) data to evaluate the performance of PRSs in predicting AIS and recurrent AIS. Recurrent AIS information was unavailable for the BBJ1 data. In BBJ2, any AIS cases (n=1,470), AIS-free controls (n=40,459), recurrent AIS cases (n=174), and non-recurrent AIS controls (n=1,153) were available. The mean duration from the first episode of AIS onset to recurrent AIS onset was 4.88 years. Detailed sample characteristics are listed in Supplementary Methods and Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1. Characteristic of the testing sample (BBJ2)

All risk factor characteristics were derived from history and not at the time of registration. Odds ratio (OR), 95% CI (95% confidence intervals, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression for onset and AIS recurrence (unadjusted for other factors). *Age at AIS case-control was that at recruitment, while age at recurrent AIS case-control was that at first incidence. The numbers indicate the median threshold age. ** The total number of missing values of smoking was 389 for all case-control and 12 for recurrent AIS case-control samples. Abbreviations: BBJ2, BioBank 2nd cohort; AIS, all ischemic stroke; SD = standard deviation

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Institute of Medical Science, the University of Tokyo, Japan. Quality control, pre-phasing, and genotype imputation were conducted using PLINK(v2.0),34–37 Eagle (v2.4.1), and Minimac4 (v1.0.2), respectively. The detailed processes are presented in the Supplementary Methods.

Constructing PRSs for AIS

Unbiased PRSs were obtained by applying a 10-fold cross-validation to select the model and optimize the parameters.26,38 Briefly, BBJ1 samples were randomly split into ten equal-sized subsamples. We retained one subsample for validation and the others for training. We repeated this process 10 times, with each of the ten subsamples used exactly once for validation. A GWAS was conducted on the training set in each iteration, adjusted for age, sex, and the first 10 principal components (PCs) via Firth logistic regression using PLINK (v.2.0).34

We obtained the weights of variants for PRS from the GWAS summary statistics of the training set using five PRS methods—P+T (PLINK (v.1.9)35 for clumping), LDpred2,39 Lassosum2,40 (LDpred2 and Lassosum2 by bigsnpr package (v.1.7.2) in R (v.3.5.0)), PRS-CS (v.1.0.0),41 and PRS-CSx (v.1.0.0).42 The PRS-CSx integrated BBJ1 with the European stroke GWAS summary statistics (MEGASTROKE; the largest study available at this study design)43 by learning an optimal linear combination. We used combinations of parameters for P+T (1,224 parameters), LDpred2 (126 parameters), Lassosum2 (200 parameters), PRS-CS (9 parameters), and PRS-CSx (9 parameters), as described in the Supplementary Methods.

Subsequently, the PRSs for the validation sample were calculated using the weights obtained from the training samples. The accuracy for predicting AIS cases was evaluated from Nagelkerke’s R2 (simply “R2” from this point onwards)29,44 after adjusting for age, sex, and the first 10 PCs. We calculated the mean R2 over 10 cross-validation results for each method with each parameter after a 10-fold cross-validation. We chose the method and parameters that maximized incremental R2 (PRSAIS) among these PRSs.

We further integrated the PRSAIS with PRSs of vascular risk factors, such as stroke subtypes and comorbid diseases presence, using the elastic net framework to construct a metaGRS using the glmnet package (v.4.1.3) in R (v.4.1.0). Nine binary traits and eight quantitative traits of vascular risk factors reported in a previous study14 are described in the Supplementary Methods. Binary traits were determined by conducting GWAS and attempting to obtain unbiased weights using cross-validations. The effect weights from the derivation sample every 17 traits were calculated using PRS-CS-auto since it did not require an independent validation sample set for parameter optimization and performed well for various traits.21,26,39,41,45 Subsequently, we used a validation sample to calculate the weight of AIS and the 17-trait PRSs to predict AIS using elastic-net logistic regression. We conducted a 10-fold cross-validation and used the mean weight for testing.

We used PLINK (v2.0)34 to calculate the individual PRS by aggregating the effect estimates multiplied by each imputed dosage into a single score per person.

Risk factors

The following seven risk factors that were previously utilized as covariates12 were used as covariates for testing: hypertension (systolic blood pressure>140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure>90 mmHg, or hypertension history), hyperlipidemia, diabetes (all types), smoking (current smoker), vascular disease (myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, stable angina pectoris, and unstable angina pectoris), congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation (including atrial flutter). A sample was considered to have a risk factor status if it had that status at enrollment or from historical records (Tables 1 and S1).

Assessment of the association of PRS with AIS and AIS recurrence

We used a single selected method with optimized parameters and calculated the metaGRS in independent testing sample sets. We used a logistic regression model to assess the association of the PRS using the two case-control settings for AIS (any-AIS versus AIS-free controls) and AIS recurrence (recurrent AIS versus non-recurrent AIS). We also applied two other combinations of case-controls: recurrent AIS versus AIS-free controls and non-recurrent AIS versus AIS-free controls (Figure 1). Furthermore, we examined additional PRS contributions of the seven risk factors to predictive accuracy and discriminative performance using the values of R2 and area under the curve (AUC), according to our previous studies.14,46 Additionally, we evaluated the performance of the following PRSs derived from other milestone studies for stroke prediction: 32 genome-wide significant variants (for any stroke, ischemic stroke, or ischemic stroke subtypes) from the MEGASTROKE cross-ancestry study of 524,354 individuals (PRS32),43 89 genome-wide significant variants of 1,614,080 multi-population individuals (PRS89), and 6,010,730 variants of the East Asian PRS developed from 9,809 individuals (iPGSEAS),18 both from the GIGASTROKE study. The PRS calculation process is described in the Supplementary Methods.

Considering potential index event bias

An index event bias may be induced when the samples are only selected from cases.47 We evaluated the extent to which the index event bias affected our results since we used case-only samples in this study. The association of PRSs with recurrent AIS was evaluated after adjusting for seven risk factors, in addition to age, sex, and the first 10 PCs. Adjusting for such confounding bias will not be enough to eliminate bias for a recurrence association study.48 Therefore, we sought to mitigate a potential index event bias by applying three distinct methodologies.48,49 First, we utilized linear and logistic regression models to assess the relationships between metaGRS and covariates within the any-AIS case (n=1,327) and AIS-free control groups (n=40,459). Initially, we did not adjust for age, sex, the seven risk factors, or the first 10 PCs. Subsequently, we observed the distributions of covariate values across the metaGRS quintiles. We performed statistical tests to detect heterogeneity in the estimates between the prevalent case and control groups, following the methodology of a prior study.19,50 Second, we refined our analysis by adjusting for associations between metaGRS and AIS recurrence while considering the differential effects of covariates, according to a previous method.19 Finally, we applied the inverse probability weighted (IPW) approach47 to comprehensively account for index event bias. Collectively, these analytical approaches were adopted to enhance the validity of our findings.

Association of metaGRS and AIS recurrence in patients with/without hypertension

Logistic regression was conducted in subgroups with and without hypertension and metaGRS tertiles among recurrent AIS cases (with hypertension n=107, without hypertension n=67) and non-recurrent AIS controls (with hypertension n=731, without hypertension n=422) to assess the relationship between the PRS and the risk of AIS recurrence. The low metaGRS tertile was set as the reference group and adjusted for age, sex, and the first 10 PCs.

Statistical analysis

The mean with standard deviation (SD) or proportion of factors was reported for the baseline characteristics of testing samples. The incremental value (R2 or AUC) was estimated from the differences between patients with and without PRSs of the fitted values of age, sex, first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors48,57,58 and calculated as the 95% confidence interval. The pROC package (v.1.18.0) in R was used to determine the discriminative ability of the AUC. The IPW package (v.1.2) in R was used for the IPW approach. R (v. 3.5.0) was used to perform logistic regression to calculate R2, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and linear regression. All statistical tests were two-sided. The significance level was set at p = 0.05.

Results

Derivation of effect weight

The imputed genotype data of 17,621 AIS cases and 162,317 controls without an AIS diagnosis were used for 9,622,629 autosomal variants after implementing quality control of the BBJ1 dataset (Tables S2-S4).

We conducted a 10-fold cross-validation to adjust the parameters and select the best PRS associated with AIS. We performed GWAS 10 times on 90% of the randomly selected BBJ1 dataset (training data). We successfully detected previously reported43,51 signals in each dataset (p<5×10-8), including SH3PXD2A, CCDC63 (eight times), CUX2, and LINC02356 (every time) (Figure S1, Table S5).

We confirmed some expected characteristics of each PRS method (such as low accuracy) using only genome-wide significant variants (Tables S6–10 and Supplementary Notes). The mean incremental R2 values of each scoring method with the best-performed parameters were 0.0038 (95% CI: 0.0030–0.0046), 0.00443 (95% CI: 0.0035–0.0054), 0.0039 (95% CI: 0.0030–0.0048), 0.00441 (95% CI: 0.0036–0.0053), and 0.0037 (95% CI: 0.0031–0.0042) for P+T, LDpred2, Lassosum2, PRS-CS, and PRS-CSx, respectively (Table 2). We chose LDpred2 with the parameter set of ρ-value = 0.0056, a heritability-value = 1.0×h2LDSC, where h2LDSC is the heritability estimate from the constrained LD score regression52, and a no-sparse model for subsequent analyses, since it showed the best mean incremental R2 value among the five methods.

View this table:
Table 2. Polygenic risk score performance at validation

We observed an average number of nonzero weights for 8.4 traits after computing the metaGRS via elastic net regularization 10 times (10-fold). The metaGRS weight of AIS was highest (mean=0.123, SD=0.026), followed by diastolic blood pressure (mean=0.039, SD=0.039), atrial fibrillation (mean=0.023, SD=0.024), and myocardial infarction (mean=0.018, SD=0.025) (Figure S2 and Table S11). Only the triglyceride weights were zero at all 10 measurements among the 18 traits included in the metaGRS calculation. The number of variants used for metaGRS was 1,014,026; a total of 1,011,847 variants (99.8%) remained after matching with the BBJ2 dataset.

Association of metaGRS with AIS cases and recurrent AIS

We used the imputed genotype data of 1,470 AIS cases and 40,459 controls without a diagnosis of AIS for 59,387,070 variants from the BBJ2 dataset to test the association of metaGRS with AIS and AIS recurrence. The AIS case-only sample of the BBJ2 was used to analyze AIS recurrence. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the test samples.

MetaGRS was associated with AIS diagnosis after adjusting for age, sex, first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors (adjusted OR, 1.21 [95% CI: 1.15–1.27, p=2.89×10-12]), as previously reported.14,18 MetaGRS was also associated with AIS recurrence compared with recurrence-free AIS (adjusted OR 1.18 [95% CI: 1.00–1.39, p=0.044]; Table 3 and Figure S3). MetaGRS showed stronger association when comparing recurrent AIS with AIS-free controls (adjusted OR 1.37 [95% CI: 1.18–1.59, p=5.35×10-5]; Table S12).

View this table:
Table 3. Polygenic risk score performance at testing

Polygenic risk score performance was evaluated using an independent testing set for AIS and recurrent AIS. We showed two main association tests; AIS (any-AIS cases vs. AIS-free controls) and AIS recurrence (recurrent AIS vs. non-recurrent AIS). Incremental AUC and R2 are the differences in the values when fitting with/without PRS, along with age, sex, the first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors. Abbreviations: AIS, all ischemic strokes; OR, odds ratio; AUC, area under the curve; PC, principal components; PRS, polygenic risk score; SD = standard deviation

The contribution of the metaGRS and traditional risk factors showed an AIS prediction accuracy with an R2 value of 0.06 and an AUC of 0.689 after constructing the baseline model using age, sex, the first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors. The incremental AUCs were 0.0087 and 0.0123 for AIS and AIS recurrence, respectively when metaGRS was added to the baseline model (Table 3). In our dataset, clinical risk factors (including hypertension) were related to AIS diagnosis but were insignificantly associated with AIS recurrence (Table S1). We assessed the prediction performance of previously developed PRSs for AIS and AIS recurrence in our dataset. After matching with the BBJ2 dataset (Supplementary Methods), 27, 84, and 5,756,652 variants remained in PRS32, PRS89, and iPGS, respectively. We confirmed their association with AIS diagnosis; adjusted ORs were 1.11 [95% CI: 1.06–1.17, p=4.23×10-5], 1.08 [95% CI: 1.03–1.14, p=2.96×10-3], and 1.26 [95% CI: 1.20–1.33, p=1.24×10-17] for PRS32, PRS89, and iPGS, respectively (Table 3, Figure S3); however, a significant association was not observed between PRSs and AIS recurrence (p-values of 0.41, 0.054, and 0.37, respectively; Table 3 and Figure S3). Our Japanese optimized metaGRS was the only PRS significantly associated with AIS recurrence in this study.

Analyzing for potential index event bias

We observed the values of covariates at the AIS-free control group and any-AIS case group in each quintile. We did not find any significant heterogeneous relationships between the covariates and the metaGRS in terms of regression estimates in the prevalent case and control samples (p>0.05, Table S13).

We used three different variable models—i) age and sex; ii) age, sex, and seven risk factors; and iii) age, sex, the first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors—to determine the association between metaGRS and recurrent AIS; none of these confounders significantly influenced our results (Figure S4).

We compared the association results of IPW adjusted (accounting for index event bias) with those of non-adjusted IPW (accounting for confounding bias). The results remained almost unchanged, but the 95% confidence intervals overlapped (Figure S5). A comparison of the three distinct models did not indicate an effect of index event bias.

Association of metaGRS and AIS recurrence in patients with/without hypertension

We divided the test sample into subgroups according to the presence or absence of a history of hypertension and evaluated the risk effect of the metaGRS tertile. The high metaGRS group without a history of hypertension showed a higher risk effect for AIS recurrence compared to the low metaGRS group (OR of the high metaGRS group compared to that of the low metaGRS group was 2.24 [95% CI: 1.07–4.66, p=0.032], Figure 2 and Table S14). However, no significant association was observed between the metaGRS and AIS recurrence in the group with a history of hypertension (the OR of the high metaGRS group compared to that of the low metaGRS group was 1.21 [95% CI: 0.69–2.13, p=0.50] (Figure 2 and Table S14).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Odds ratio of metaGRS tertiles with/without a history of hypertension

Association of AIS recurrence and meta-GRS tertiles with or without a history of hypertension (HT) in the testing sample, with reference to the low metaGRS tertiles.

Discussion

We successfully examined the association between recurrent AIS and our best model PRS (metaGRS using LDpred2); the adjusted OR was 1.18 for each unit of SD increase in PRS. Our metaGRS showed stronger (adjusted OR per SD=1.37) association when comparing recurrent AIS with AIS-free controls. Furthermore, a high PRS was associated with AIS recurrence particularly in groups without a history of hypertension (OR of the top vs. bottom metaGRS tertile=2.24). These results are consistent with the result of a previous study wherein the stroke prediction accuracy of the PRS was high in the group with low CHA2DS2-VASc scores.12 These results indicate the utility of the PRS in developing more precise strategies to prevent AIS recurrence in individuals with a high PRS who do not have high profiles based on clinical risk factors.

We attempted to mitigate potential index event bias since our purpose was to specifically determine the efficacy of PRS among AIS patients. It is difficult to predict and provide an accurate assessment of recurrent AIS based on genetic predisposition owing to the possible effect of index event bias leading to a distorted association in studies on recurrent stroke.19,20,53 This study found no evidence of heterogeneous associations between covariates and the metaGRS; we did not find any evidence of a solid collider bias of known variables. By applying IPW, we confirmed that our results support the association between metaGRS and recurrent AIS.

There are three putative reasons our metaGRS could predict AIS recurrence. First, the metaGRS algorithm combines the genetic profiles of related traits and slightly improves the performance, reaching the level of significance. Second, the performances of PRS-CS (incremental R2=0.00441) and LDpred2 (incremental R2=0.00443) in our validation analysis were better than those of other traditional PRS methods, such as P+T (incremental R2=0.0038) . This demonstrated the importance of using shrinkage estimation methods that consider LD to predict AIS and AIS recurrence. Third, we restricted to use only single matched ancestry throughout.

Nevertheless, our study had several limitations. First, the sample size for recurrent AIS needs to be increased (n=174 at testing), even in the largest hospital-based biobank in Japan. Compared to our metaGRS, iPGS constructed in GIGASTROKE showed a stronger association for AIS and weaker association for AIS recurrence. Although potential discrepancies exist, both PRSs (metaGRS and iPGS) exhibit the same direction of effects and have overlapping confidence intervals (Table 3, Figure S3). Second, despite using as many covariates (age, sex, the first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, vascular disease, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation)) as possible based on a previous study,12 other confounders might have affected our results. Finally, there may have been an index event bias that was not fully detected by each method that we implemented; however this risk was minimized using multiple approaches. Further studies using different sample sets (including other ancestry groups) are warranted to confirm the prediction of recurrent stroke using the PRS.

In conclusion, our study indicated that PRS can be applied to predict AIS recurrence in addition to traditional clinical risk factors. This shows the potential utility of PRS in population-based screening and in the clinical setting. Overall, our results indicate that stratifying high-risk groups for recurrent stroke among those who have experienced a stroke could be medically beneficial and help in developing personalized strategies for recurrence prevention. Our results suggest that it might be particularly useful in patients with AIS without hypertension, although this requires confirmation in independent datasets.

Data availability

The weights of metaGRS derived in this study will be publicly available after acceptance. Genotype datasets were deposited in the National Bioscience Database Center Human Database (BBJ1, Research ID: hum0014; BBJ2, Research ID: hum0311).

Source of Funding

This research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology (MEXT) of the Japanese government and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) under grant nos. JP18km0605001/ JP23tm0624002 (the BioBank Japan project), JP223fa627011 (Y.K.), and JP23tm0524003 (Y.K.).

Disclosures

Y.K. holds stock of StaGen Co, Ltd.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Methods

Supplementary Notes

Tables S1–S15

Figures S1–S5

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary Methods

Samples

BioBank Japan (BBJ) collected DNA, serum, and medical records (clinical information) with consent from patients. The BBJ 1st cohort (BBJ1) dataset contained all ischemic stroke (AIS, n=17,621) cases, including large artery stroke (LAS, n=981), small vessel stroke (SVS, n=3,108), and cardioembolic stroke (CES, n=608) cases. The patients without AIS were included as controls (n=162,317).

Testing involved the use of data from part of the BBJ 2nd cohort (BBJ2) dataset, which contains information about AIS cases (n=1,470), including LAS (n=268), SVS (n=508), CES (n=122), and transient ischemic attack (TIA, n=105). All patients without AIS were included as controls (n=40,459). Among these cases, recurrent ischemic stroke (n=187) was used as a case of recurrent AIS, which included LAS (n=40), SVS (n=57), CES (n=11), and transient ischemic attack (TIA, n=20). Samples with information on the first onset date and follow-up of under 30 days were excluded; AIS cases with recurrence (n=174) were set as the case group, and AIS cases without recurrence (n=1,153) remained in the control group in the testing sample.

Quality control and imputation process of BBJ1 data

We removed variants with call rates <0.99, samples with call rates <0.98, non-East Asian samples, and sex-discordant samples. We used 939 samples whose genotypes were analyzed using whole-genome sequencing (WGS); we added an additional quality control based on the concordance rate between the genotyping array and WGS. We excluded variants with concordance rates <99.5% or non-reference discordance rates ≥0.5% and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) (p<1e-6). The 10 principal components (PCs) were calculated by applying additional quality control (QC) to the BBJ1 genotyped data. We removed samples from close relatives (King’s cutoff >0.0884), and 24 long LD regions,54 including the MHC region (chr6, position 25,000,000-35,000,000), and MAF<0.01. We pruned (PLINK2 parameters: --indep-pairwise 200 50 0.20) and finally used 92,231–92,303 variants to conduct projection and calculate the first 10 PCs depending on a 10-fold sample set of the 90% BBJ1 dataset.

Subsequently, the datasets were phased (Eagle v2.4.1) and imputed (Minimac4 v1.0.2) using the developed panel.55 We further conducted quality control to remove variants with minor allele counts <10, close relatives (King cutoff >0.0884), and imputation r-square <0.8.

Quality control and imputation process for BBJ2 data

We removed samples with no age/sex information, sex discrepancy, call rates <0.98, heterozygosity rates with SD >4 or <-4, from duplicate or twins (pi-hat >= 0.75), and from non-East Asian subjects. We then removed variants with a call rate <0.99, duplicate SNPs, heterozygous count <5, HWE (p<1e-6), and allele frequency discrepancies (gap from 1000 genomes EAS >0.16). A total of 41,929 samples and 525,239 variants were analyzed.

We applied additional quality control to the BBJ2 genotyped data to calculate the 10 PCs. We removed variants in 24 long LD regions,54 pruned them (PLINK2 parameters: --indep- pairwise 200 50 0.05), extracted close relatives (King cut-off >0.0884), and used 69,068 variants to calculate the first 10 PCs.

We removed variants of the imputation r-squared <0.3 after phasing (Eagle v2.4.1) and imputing (Minimac4 v1.0.2) the developed panel.55 We used a lower r-square threshold for BBJ2 to reduce the number of variants unmatched with BBJ1.

Polygenic risk score parameters at the derivation

Pruning and threshold used a total of 1,224 parameter combinations of three stricter imputation r-squared score thresholds {0.8, 0.9, and 0.95}, four base sizes of the clumping window {50, 100, 200, and 500}, six squared correlations of clumping {0.01, 0.05, 0.2, 0.5, 0.8, and 0.95}, and 17 p-value threshold {1e-8, 3e-8, 1e-7, 3e-7, 1e-6, 3e-6, 1e-5, 3e-5, 1e-4, 3e-4, 1e-3, 3e-3, 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, and 1}. We used clumping windows and divided the base size by the squared correlation of clumping.56–59 The following default parameters were used for LDpred2: three heritability {0.7, 1, and 1.4}×h2LDSC, where h2LDSC is the heritability estimate from the constrained LD score regression,52 21 ρ estimates {equally spaced on a log scale between 1e-5 and 1}, and sparse or not. The following default parameters were used for Lassosum2: 10 values of s {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0} and 20 values of λ {equally spaced on a log scale between 0.1 and 0.001}. Regarding PRS-CS and PRS-CSx, we used slightly more extended parameters: phi {1e-7, 1e-6, 1e-5, 1e-4, 1e-3, 0.01, 0.1, 1, and auto}, than the default parameters {1e-4, 1e-3, 0.01, 0.1, 1, and auto}, because the optimized parameter in the initial trials using our dataset was the smallest (phi=1e-4) in the default range. Other parameters were set to default values (a=1, b=0.5).41,42

Linkage disequilibrium (LD) reference

We used the EAS superpopulation of the 1000 Genomes panel (n=504) as a LD reference for P+T clumping. For Ldpred2, Lassosum2, PRS-CS, and PRS-CSx models, we restricted our use of external LD reference panels to the HapMap 3 variants, which were also constructed from 1000 Genomes EAS. HapMap 3 variant restriction resulted in 898,456, 898,456, 985,440, and 1,076,835 variants of Ldpred2, Lassosum2, PRS-CS, and PRS-CSx, respectively. To use PRS-CSx for the EUR, we used the EUR superpopulation of the 1000 Genomes panel and its HapMap3 variants (1,016,745 variants).

Genome wide association study summary statistics for metaGRS construction

MetaGRS was developed following a previous study14 and included nine binary and eight quantitative traits. The nine binary traits were SVS, LAS, CES, myocardial infarction (MI), stable angina pectoris (SAP), unstable angina pectoris (AP), atrial fibrillation (AF), diabetes (DM), and ever smoking (SM) from the BBJ1 dataset. Subsequently, we conducted GWAS. The number of cases and controls is listed in Table S15. Summary statistics were obtained from the jMorp website (https://jmorp.megabank.tohoku.ac.jp) and were used for eight quantitative traits—body mass index (BMI), height (HE), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) from the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project (ToMMo; 22,033 to 47,056 samples).60

Polygenic risk score calculation from other milestone studies

We obtained effect weights from the PGS catalog (PGS000665 and PGS002725 of https://www.pgscatalog.org for PRS32 and iPGSEAS, respectively) and for PRS89 from the supplementary tables.18 We used variants that matched with the BBJ2 dataset (imputation r-squared > 0.3). The unmatched variants in PRS32 and PRS89 included proxy variants that showed the highest r-squared values with the index variants only from an r-squared value greater than 0.3. The r-squared values were calculated using the plink --r2 command35 with the 1000 Genome EAS as a reference.

Supplementary Notes

Characteristics of the PRS methods during validation

The following characteristics of each method were observed while testing several parameters: the best mean incremental R2 of 0.0038 was observed for the P + T method when we liberalized the p-value threshold to 1 and clumped r2 >0.8, whereas it was below 0.001 when we used a low p-value threshold (<10-8, Table S5). For LDpred2, ρ values higher than 0.001 showed good performance (mean incremental R2 was 0.0038 for ρ values >=0.001 compared to 0.0016 for ρ values <0.001), while heritability estimates and sparse parameters made less difference (Table S6). For Lassosum2, the closer the value of parameter “s” is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy, but it wasn’t the case at exactly 1. Larger lambda parameters correlate with greater accuracy (mean incremental R2 was between 0.0025 to 0.0039). However, the accuracy sharply decreases (mean incremental R2<0.001) if the value is too small (<0.01). The prediction performance was maximized when the parameters were s=0.9 and lambda=0.0038 (Table S7). High and low phi values resulted in low performance for PRS-CS (mean incremental R2 was 0.0041 for phi=10-3, 10-4, and 10-5 compared to 0.0029 for other phi parameters; Table S8). Meanwhile, PRS-CSx was relatively consistent regardless of the phi values (mean incremental R2 was 0.0032 for phi=10-3, 10-4, and 10-5 compared to 0.0028 for other phi parameters; Table S9).

The performance of the PRS-CS (R2=0.00441) was comparable to that of LDpred2 (R2=0.00443) in the validation analysis. Low validation predictability (incremental R2 < 0.001) was observed when we restricted the p-value threshold in the P+T method to genome-wide significance (p<5×10-8). PRS-CSx improves cross-population polygenic prediction by integrating GWAS summary statistics from other populations;61–65 however, we could not reproduce this result in our current study using PRS-CSx. Our results demonstrate the importance of using Bayesian methods of high-dimensional techniques in variable selection and shrinkage estimation considering LD (such as LDpred2 and PRS-CS) to predict AIS and recurrent AIS.

Supplementary Figures

Figure S1.
Figure S1. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) in derivation samples

We conducted stroke GWAS using 90% of BBJ 1st cohort data as the derivation sample, using Firth logistic regression and PLINK (v.2.0) for each 10-fold cross-validation identification. a. Quantile-Quantile plot, b. Manhattan plot, and c. genome-wide significant (p<5e-8) loci of each fold. Abbreviations: Chr = chromosome.

Figure S2.
Figure S2. Elastic net weight

The mean weight of 10-fold elastic net regression as determined by “glmnet” in the validation sample. The X-axis shows the AS and the 17 binary and quantitative traits. Error bars represent standard deviations. Abbreviations: AIS, all ischemic stroke; SVS, small vessel stroke; LAS, large artery stroke; CES, cardioembolic stroke; MI, myocardial infarction; SAP, stable angina pectoris; UAP, unstable angina pectoris; AF, atrial fibrillation; DM, diabetes; SM, smoking; BMI, body mass index; HE, height; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HCL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; SD, standard deviation.

Figure S3.
Figure S3. Odds ratio per SD to predict AIS and AIS recurrence

Odds ratio per standard deviation by metaGRS and three publicly available PRS in the independent test set of AIS (case=1, 470, control=40,459) and AIS recurrence case-control set (case=174, control=1,153). Age, sex, the first 10 PCs, and seven risk factors were adjusted. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The dotted line represents the point at which the ORs per SD of AIS and AIS recurrence were equal. Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; AIS, all ischemic stroke; PRS, polygenic risk score; PC, principal component; SD, standard deviation.

Figure S4.
Figure S4. Association between seven comorbidities and AIS/AIS recurrence

The Y-axis shows the odds ratio per standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the seven risk factors (six clinical comorbidities and smoking) in the BBJ 2nd cohort. In our dataset, we used HT defined as SBP>140 mmHg, DBP>90 mmHg, or hypertension history, DM inclusive of type 1 diabetes and other diabetes, SM as a current smoker at the time of registration, VD representing myocardial infarction, arteriosclerosis obliterans, stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, and AF inclusive of atrial flutter. We used the status at the time of registration and history of these comorbidities.

Abbreviations: HT, hypertension; HL, hyperlipidemia; DM, diabetes; SM, smoking; VD, vascular disease; HF, congestive heart failure; AF, atrial fibrillation.

Figure S5.
Figure S5. Association between metaGRS and AIS recurrence in patients with or without IPW adjustment

The y-axis shows the odds ratio per SD and the 95% confidence interval for predicting recurrent AIS. Model 1: age and sex; model 2: age, sex, and seven risk factors; model 3: age, sex, the first 10 principal components (PCs), and seven risk factors. The color represents whether the inverse probability weight (IPW) is adjusted. We applied logistic regression using variables as covariates when the IPW was not adjusted. We replaced 14 missing data on the smoking status to mean values.

Supplementary Tables

In separate spreadsheets S1-15

Consortium authors

BioBank Japan

Koichi Matsuda1,2, Yuji Yamanashi3, Yoichi Furukawa4, Takayuki Morisaki5, Yoshinori Murakami6, Yoichiro Kamatani2,7, Kaori Muto8, Akiko Nagai8, Wataru Obara9, Ken Yamaji10, Kazuhisa Takahashi11, Satoshi Asai12,13, Yasuo Takahashi13, Takao Suzuki14, Nobuaki Sinozaki14, Hiroki Yamaguchi15, Shiro Minami16, Shigeo Murayama17, Kozo Yoshimori18, Satoshi Nagayama19, Daisuke Obata20, Masahiko Higashiyama21, Akihide Masumoto22, Yukihiro Koretsune23

1Laboratory of Genome Technology, Human Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

2Laboratory of Clinical Genome Sequencing, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The

University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

3Division of Genetics, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

4Division of Clinical Genome Research, Institute of Medical Science, The University of

Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

5Division of Molecular Pathology IMSUT Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine Project Division of Genomic Medicine and Disease Prevention The Institute of Medical Science The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

6Department of Cancer Biology, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo,

Tokyo, Japan.

7Laboratory of Complex Trait Genomics, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

8Department of Public Policy, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

9Department of Urology, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.

10Department of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

11Department of Respiratory Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine,

Tokyo, Japan.

12Division of Pharmacology, Department of Biomedical Science, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

13Division of Genomic Epidemiology and Clinical Trials, Clinical Trials Research Center,

Nihon University. School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

14Tokushukai Group, Tokyo, Japan.

15Hiroki Yamaguchi. Department of Hematology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.

16Department of Bioregulation, Nippon Medical School, Kawasaki, Japan.

17Shigeo Murayama. Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital and Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan.

18Fukujuji Hospital, Japan Anti-Tuberculosis Association, Tokyo, Japan.

19The Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.

20Center for Clinical Research and Advanced Medicine, Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan.

21Masahiko Higashiyama. Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan.

22Iizuka Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.

23National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan.

MEGASTROKE CONSORTIUM

Rainer Malik1, Ganesh Chauhan2, Matthew Traylor3, Muralidharan Sargurupremraj4,5, Yukinori Okada6,7,8, Aniket Mishra4,5, Loes Rutten-Jacobs3, Anne-Katrin Giese9, Sander W van der Laan10, Solveig Gretarsdottir11, Christopher D Anderson12,13,14, Michael Chong15, Hieab HH Adams16,17, Tetsuro Ago18, Peter Almgren19, Philippe Amouyel20,21, Hakan Ay13,22, Traci M Bartz23, Oscar R Benavente24, Steve Bevan25, Giorgio B Boncoraglio26, Robert D Brown, Jr.27, Adam S Butterworth28,29, Caty Carrera30,31, Cara L Carty32,33, Daniel I Chasman34,35, Wei-Min Chen36, John W Cole37, Adolfo Correa38, Ioana Cotlarciuc39, Carlos Cruchaga40,41, John Danesh28,42,43,44 , Paul IW de Bakker45,46, Anita L DeStefano47,48, Marcel den Hoed49, Qing Duan50, Stefan T Engelter51,52, Guido J Falcone53,54, Rebecca F Gottesman55, Raji P Grewal56, Vilmundur Gudnason57,58, Stefan Gustafsson59, Jeffrey Haessler60, Tamara B Harris61, Ahamad Hassan62, Aki S Havulinna63,64, Susan R Heckbert65, Elizabeth G Holliday66,67, George Howard68, Fang-Chi Hsu69, Hyacinth I Hyacinth70, M Arfan Ikram16, Erik Ingelsson71,72, Marguerite R Irvin73, Xueqiu Jian74, Jordi Jiménez-Conde75, Julie A Johnson76,77, J Wouter Jukema78, Masahiro Kanai6,7,79, Keith L Keene80,81, Brett M Kissela82, Dawn O Kleindorfer82, Charles Kooperberg60, Michiaki Kubo83, Leslie A Lange84, Carl D Langefeld85, Claudia Langenberg86, Lenore J Launer87, Jin-Moo Lee88, Robin Lemmens89,90, Didier Leys91, Cathryn M Lewis92,93, Wei-Yu Lin28,94, Arne G Lindgren95,96, Erik Lorentzen97, Patrik K Magnusson98, Jane Maguire99, Ani Manichaikul36, Patrick F McArdle100, James F Meschia101, Braxton D Mitchell100,102, Thomas H Mosley103,104, Michael A Nalls105,106, Toshiharu Ninomiya107, Martin J O’Donnell15,108, Bruce M Psaty109,110,111,112 , Sara L Pulit45,113, Kristiina Rannikmäe114,115, Alexander P Reiner65,116, Kathryn M Rexrode117, Kenneth Rice118, Stephen S Rich36, Paul M Ridker34,35, Natalia S Rost9,13, Peter M Rothwell119, Jerome I Rotter120,121, Tatjana Rundek122, Ralph L Sacco122, Saori Sakaue7,123, Michele M Sale124, Veikko Salomaa63, Bishwa R Sapkota125, Reinhold Schmidt126, Carsten O Schmidt127, Ulf Schminke128, Pankaj Sharma39, Agnieszka Slowik129, Cathie LM Sudlow114,115, Christian Tanislav130, Turgut Tatlisumak131,132, Kent D Taylor120,121, Vincent NS Thijs133,134, Gudmar Thorleifsson11, Unnur Thorsteinsdottir11, Steffen Tiedt1, Stella Trompet135, Christophe Tzourio5,136,137, Cornelia M van Duijn138,139, Matthew Walters140, Nicholas J Wareham86, Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller141, James G Wilson142, Kerri L Wiggins109, Qiong Yang47, Salim Yusuf15, Najaf Amin16, Hugo S Aparicio48,185, Donna K Arnett186, John Attia187, Alexa S Beiser47,48, Claudine Berr188, Julie E Buring34,35, Mariana Bustamante189, Valeria Caso190, Yu-Ching Cheng191, Seung Hoan Choi48,192, Ayesha Chowhan48,185, Natalia Cullell31, Jean-François Dartigues193,194, Hossein Delavaran95,96, Pilar Delgado195, Marcus Dörr196,197, Gunnar Engström19, Ian Ford198, Wander S Gurpreet199, Anders Hamsten 200,201, Laura Heitsch202, Atsushi Hozawa203, Laura Ibanez204, Andreea Ilinca95,96, Martin Ingelsson205, Motoki Iwasaki206, Rebecca D Jackson207, Katarina Jood208, Pekka Jousilahti63, Sara Kaffashian4,5, Lalit Kalra209, Masahiro Kamouchi210, Takanari Kitazono211, Olafur Kjartansson212, Manja Kloss213, Peter J Koudstaal214, Jerzy Krupinski215, Daniel L Labovitz216, Cathy C Laurie118, Christopher R Levi217, Linxin Li218, Lars Lind219, Cecilia M Lindgren220,221, Vasileios Lioutas48,222, Yong Mei Liu223, Oscar L Lopez224, Hirata Makoto225, Nicolas Martinez-Majander172, Koichi Matsuda225, Naoko Minegishi203, Joan Montaner226, Andrew P Morris227,228, Elena Muiño31, Martina Müller-Nurasyid229,230,231 , Bo Norrving95,96, Soichi Ogishima203, Eugenio A Parati232, Leema Reddy Peddareddygari56, Nancy L Pedersen98,233, Joanna Pera129, Markus Perola63,234, Alessandro Pezzini235, Silvana Pileggi236, Raquel Rabionet237, Iolanda Riba-Llena30, Marta Ribasés238, Jose R Romero48,185, Jaume Roquer239,240, Anthony G Rudd241,242, Antti-Pekka Sarin243,244, Ralhan Sarju199, Chloe Sarnowski47,48, Makoto Sasaki245, Claudia L Satizabal48,185, Mamoru Satoh245, Naveed Sattar246, Norie Sawada206, Gerli Sibolt172, Ásgeir Sigurdsson247, Albert Smith248, Kenji Sobue245, Carolina Soriano-Tárraga240, Tara Stanne249, O Colin Stine250, David J Stott251, Konstantin Strauch229,252, Takako Takai203, Hideo Tanaka253,254, Kozo Tanno245, Alexander Teumer255, Liisa Tomppo172, Nuria P Torres-Aguila31, Emmanuel Touze256,257, Shoichiro Tsugane206, Andre G Uitterlinden258, Einar M Valdimarsson259, Sven J van der Lee16, Henry Völzke255, Kenji Wakai253, David Weir260, Stephen R Williams261, Charles DA Wolfe241,242, Quenna Wong118, Huichun Xu191, Taiki Yamaji206, Dharambir K Sanghera125,169,170 , Olle Melander19, Christina Jern171, Daniel Strbian172,173, Israel Fernandez-Cadenas31,30, W T Longstreth, Jr65,174, Arndt Rolfs175, Jun Hata107, Daniel Woo82, Jonathan Rosand12,13,14, Guillaume Pare15, Jemma C Hopewell176, Danish Saleheen177, Kari Stefansson11,178, Bradford B Worrall179, Steven J Kittner37, Sudha Seshadri48,180, Myriam Fornage74,181, Hugh S Markus3, Joanna MM Howson28, Yoichiro Kamatani6,182, Stephanie Debette4,5, Martin Dichgans1,183,184

1Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research (ISD), University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

2Centre for Brain Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

3Stroke Research Group, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, UK

4INSERM U1219 Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Bordeaux, France

5University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

6Laboratory for Statistical Analysis, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan

7Department of Statistical Genetics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan

8Laboratory of Statistical Immunology, Immunology Frontier Research Center (WPI-IFReC), Osaka University, Suita, Japan.

9Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

10Laboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Division of Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht,Netherlands

11deCODE genetics/AMGEN inc, Reykjavik, Iceland

12Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, MA, USA

13J. Philip Kistler Stroke Research Center, Department of Neurology, MGH, Boston, MA, USA

14Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA

15Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

16Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

17Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

18Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

19Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden

20Univ. Lille, Inserm, Institut Pasteur de Lille, LabEx DISTALZ-UMR1167, Risk factors and molecular determinants of aging-related diseases, F-59000 Lille, France

21Centre Hosp. Univ Lille, Epidemiology and Public Health Department, F-59000 Lille, France

22AA Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

23Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, Departments of Biostatistics and Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

24Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Brain Research Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

25School of Life Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

26Department of Cerebrovascular Diseases, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico "Carlo Besta", Milano, Italy

27Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA

28MRC/BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

29The National Institute for Health Research Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, University of Cambridge, UK

30Neurovascular Research Laboratory, Vall d’Hebron Institut of Research, Neurology and Medicine Departments-Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Vall d’Hebrón Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

31Stroke Pharmacogenomics and Genetics, Fundacio Docència i Recerca MutuaTerrassa, Terrassa, Spain

32Children’s Research Institute, Children’ s National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

33Center for Translational Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

34Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

35Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

36Center for Public Health Genomics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

37Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine and Baltimore VAMC, Baltimore, MD, USA

38Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics and Population Health Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

39Institute of Cardiovascular Research, Royal Holloway University of London, UK & Ashford and St Peters Hospital, Surrey UK

40Department of Psychiatry,The Hope Center Program on Protein Aggregation and Neurodegeneration (HPAN),Washington University, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

41Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

42NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

43Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK

44British Heart Foundation, Cambridge Centre of Excellence, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

45Department of Medical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

46Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

47Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

48Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, MA, USA

49Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

50Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

51Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland

52Neurorehabilitation Unit, University and University Center for Medicine of Aging and Rehabilitation Basel, Felix Platter Hospital, Basel, Switzerland

53Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

54Program in Medical and Population Genetics, The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA

55Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,

Baltimore, MD, USA

56Neuroscience Institute, SF Medical Center, Trenton, NJ, USA

57Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland

58University of Iceland, Faculty of Medicine, Reykjavik, Iceland

59Department of Medical Sciences, Molecular Epidemiology and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

60Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

61Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Science, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

62Department of Neurology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK

63National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

64FIMM - Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, Helsinki, Finland

65Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

66Public Health Stream, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia

67Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

68School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

69Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

70Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

71Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA, USA

72Department of Medical Sciences, Molecular Epidemiology and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

73Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA

74Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

75Neurovascular Research Group (NEUVAS), Neurology Department, Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigació Mèdica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

76Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research and Center for Pharmacogenomics, University of Florida, College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA

77Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

78Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

79Program in Bioinformatics and Integrative Genomics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

80Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

81Center for Health Disparities, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

82University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

83RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan

84Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA

85Center for Public Health Genomics and Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

86MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK

87Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

88Department of Neurology, Radiology, and Biomedical Engineering, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

89KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Department of Neurosciences, Experimental Neurology, Leuven, Belgium

90VIB Center for Brain & Disease Research, University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Neurology, Leuven, Belgium

91Univ.-Lille, INSERM U 1171. CHU Lille. Lille, France

92Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College London, London, UK

93SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

94Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Paul O’Gorman Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

95Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Neurology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

96Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

97Bioinformatics Core Facility, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

98Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

99University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Health, Ultimo, Australia

100Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, MD, USA

101Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA

102Geriatrics Research and Education Clinical Center, Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA

103Division of Geriatrics, School of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

104Memory Impairment and Neurodegenerative Dementia Center, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

105Laboratory of Neurogenetics, National Institute on Aging, National institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

106Data Tecnica International, Glen Echo MD, USA

107Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

108Clinical Research Facility, Department of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland

109Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

110Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

111Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

112Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA

113Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology, University Medical

Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

114Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

115Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

116Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

117Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

118Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

119Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, UK

120Institute for Translational Genomics and Population Sciences, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA

121Division of Genomic Outcomes, Department of Pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA

122Department of Neurology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

123Department of Allergy and Rheumatology, Graduate School of Medicine, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

124Center for Public Health Genomics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

125Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

126Department of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

127University Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Community Medicine, SHIP-KEF, Greifswald, Germany

128University Medicine Greifswald, Department of Neurology, Greifswald, Germany

129Department of Neurology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

130Department of Neurology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

131Department of Clinical Neurosciences/Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

132Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

133Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia

134Austin Health, Department of Neurology, Heidelberg, Australia

135Department of Internal Medicine, Section Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

136INSERM U1219, Bordeaux, France

137Department of Public Health, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France

138Genetic Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands

139Center for Medical Systems Biology, Leiden, Netherlands

140School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

141Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, USA

142Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

143A full list of members and affiliations appears in the Supplementary Note

144Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

145Department of Pathophysiology, Institute of Biomedicine and Translation Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

146Department of Cardiac Surgery, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia

147Clinical Gene Networks AB, Stockholm, Sweden

148Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, The Icahn Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY , USA

149Department of Pathophysiology, Institute of Biomedicine and Translation Medicine, University of Tartu, Biomeedikum, Tartu, Estonia

150Integrated Cardio Metabolic Centre, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Huddinge, Sweden.

151Clinical Gene Networks AB, Stockholm, Sweden

152Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ. Paris 06, INSERM, UMR_S 1166, Team Genomics & Pathophysiology of Cardiovascular Diseases, Paris, France

153ICAN Institute for Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Paris, France

154Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

155Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA, USA

156Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, VA Office of Research and Development, Seattle, WA, USA

157Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

158Department of Medical Research, Bærum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Gjettum, Norway

159Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore

160National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK

161Department of Gene Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Research Institute, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

162Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA

163Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands

164MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK

165Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK

166Department of Cardiology, Ealing Hospital NHS Trust, Southall, UK

167National Heart, Lung and Blood Research Institute, Division of Intramural Research, Population Sciences Branch, Framingham, MA, USA

168A full list of members and affiliations appears at the end of the manuscript

169Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

170Oklahoma Center for Neuroscience, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

171Department of Pathology and Genetics, Institute of Biomedicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

172Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

173Clinical Neurosciences, Neurology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

174Department of Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

175Albrecht Kossel Institute, University Clinic of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

176Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

177Department of Genetics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA

178Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

179Departments of Neurology and Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA

180Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

181Human Genetics Center, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

182Center for Genomic Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan

183Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy), Munich, Germany

184German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Munich, Germany

185Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

186University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA

187University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia

188Univ. Montpellier, Inserm, U1061, Montpellier, France

189Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, Barcelona, Spain

190Department of Neurology, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Umbria, Italy

191Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

192Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA

193Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, UMR 1219, Bordeaux, France

194Bordeaux University Hospital, Department of Neurology, Memory Clinic, Bordeaux, France

195Neurovascular Research Laboratory. Vall d’Hebron Institut of Research, Neurology and Medicine Departments-Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Vall d’Hebrón Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

196University Medicine Greifswald, Department of Internal Medicine B, Greifswald, Germany

197DZHK, Greifswald, Germany

198Robertson Center for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

199Hero DMC Heart Institute, Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, India

200Atherosclerosis Research Unit, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

201Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

202Division of Emergency Medicine, and Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

203Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Sendai, Japan

204Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

205Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences / Geriatrics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

206Epidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan

207Department of Internal Medicine and the Center for Clinical and Translational Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

208Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden

209Department of Basic and Clinical Neurosciences, King’s College London, London, UK

210Department of Health Care Administration and Management, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Japan

211Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Japan

212Landspitali National University Hospital, Departments of Neurology & Radiology, Reykjavik, Iceland

213Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany

214Department of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center

215Hospital Universitari Mutua Terrassa, Terrassa (Barcelona), Spain

216Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

217John Hunter Hospital, Hunter Medical Research Institute and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

218Centre for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, UK

219Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

220Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology Unit, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

221The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK

222Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

223Wake Forest School of Medicine, Wake Forest, NC, USA

224Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

225BioBank Japan, Laboratory of Clinical Sequencing, Department of Computational biology and medical Sciences, Graduate school of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

226Neurovascular Research Laboratory, Vall d’Hebron Institut of Research, Neurology and Medicine Departments-Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Vall d’Hebrón Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

227Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

228Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

229Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany

230Department of Medicine I, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany

231DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany

232Department of Cerebrovascular Diseases, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico “Carlo Besta”, Milano, Italy

233Karolinska Institutet, MEB, Stockholm, Sweden

234University of Tartu, Estonian Genome Center, Tartu, Estonia, Tartu, Estonia

235Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Neurology Clinic, University of Brescia, Italy

236Translational Genomics Unit, Department of Oncology, IRCCS Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milano, Italy

237Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

238Psychiatric Genetics Unit, Group of Psychiatry, Mental Health and Addictions, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Biomedical Network Research Centre on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Barcelona, Spain

239Department of Neurology, IMIM-Hospital del Mar, and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

240IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain

241National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UK

242Division of Health and Social Care Research, King’s College London, London, UK

243FIMM-Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, Helsinki, Finland

244THL-National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

245Iwate Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan

246BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Glasgow, UK

247deCODE Genetics/Amgen, Inc., Reykjavik, Iceland

248Icelandic Heart Association, Reykjavik, Iceland

249Institute of Biomedicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden

250Department of Epidemiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

251Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

252Chair of Genetic Epidemiology, IBE, Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Germany

253Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, Nagoya, Japan

254Department of Epidemiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan

255University Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Community Medicine, SHIP-KEF, Greifswald, Germany

256Department of Neurology, Caen University Hospital, Caen, France

257University of Caen Normandy, Caen, France

258Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

259Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland

260Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

261University of Virginia Department of Neurology, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Acknowledgments

We want to acknowledge all the participants and investigators of BioBank Japan. Supercomputing resources were provided by the Human Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, and the University of Tokyo (http://sc.hgc.jp/shirokane.html). The ToMMo summary statistics were derived from jMorp (https://jmorp.megabank.tohoku.ac.jp/gwas-studies/TGA000007). The MEGASTROKE project received funding from sources specified at https://www.megastroke.org/acknowledgements.html

Non-standard abbreviations and acronyms

PRS
polygenic risk score
P+T
pruning and thresholding
BBJ
BioBank Japan
BBJ1
BBJ 1st cohort
BBJ2
BBJ 2nd cohort
ToMMo
Tohoku Medical Megabank
AIS
all ischemic stroke
IPW
inverse probability weighting
LD
linkage disequilibrium
GWAS
genome-wide association study
PC
principal component
IPW
inverse probability weight
AUC
area under the curve
LAS
large artery stroke
SVS
small vessel stroke
CES
cardioembolic stroke
TIS
transient ischemic attack
HWE
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
WGS
whole genome sequencing
MI
myocardial infarction
SAP
stable angina pectoris
AP
unstable angina pectoris
AF
atrial fibrillation
DM
diabetes mellitus
SM
smoking
BMI
body mass index
HE
height
SBP
systolic blood pressure
DBP
diastolic blood pressure
TC
total cholesterol
TG
triglyceride
HDL
high-density lipoprotein
LDL
low-density lipoprotein

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ministry of Health, L. and W. Vital Statistics of Japan, https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/kakutei20/index.html. (2020).
  2. 2.↵
    O’Donnell, M. J. et al. Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. The Lancet 388, 761–775 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Hata, J. et al. Ten year recurrence after first ever stroke in a Japanese community: The Hisayama study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 76, 368–372 (2005).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Takashima, N. et al. Long-term survival after stroke in 1.4 million japanese population: Shiga stroke and heart attack registry. J Stroke 22, 336–344 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    MacArthur, J. et al. The new NHGRI-EBI Catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS Catalog). Nucleic Acids Res 45, D896–D901 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Torkamani, A., Wineinger, N. E. & Topol, E. J. The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Nat Rev Genet 19, 581–590 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    Khera, A. v., et al. Whole-Genome Sequencing to Characterize Monogenic and Polygenic Contributions in Patients Hospitalized With Early-Onset Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 139, 1593–1602 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    Konuma, T. & Okada, Y. Statistical genetics and polygenic risk score for precision medicine. Inflamm Regen 41, (2021).
  9. 9.
    Levin, M. G. & Rader, D. J. Polygenic Risk Scores and Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation 637–640 (2020) doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044770.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    Plagnol, V. Polygenic score development in the era of large-scale biobanks. Cell Genomics 2, 100088 (2022).
  11. 11.↵
    Khera, A. v., et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nature Genetics vol. 50 1219–1224 Preprint at doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Marston NA et al. Clinical Application of A Novel Genetic Risk Score Predicts Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Cardiometabolic Disease. Circulation. 2021 Feb 2;143(5):470-478. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051927. Epub 2020 Nov 13. PMID: 33185476; PMCID: PMC7856243. (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Rutten-Jacobs, L. C. A. et al. Genetic risk, incident stroke, and the benefits of adhering to a healthy lifestyle: Cohort study of 306 473 UK Biobank participants. BMJ (Online) 363, 1–8 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Abraham, G. et al. Genomic risk score offers predictive performance comparable to clinical risk factors for ischaemic stroke. Nat Commun 10, 1–10 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Thomas, E. A. et al. Polygenic Risk, Midlife Life’s Simple 7, and Lifetime Risk of Stroke. J Am Heart Assoc 11, (2022).
  16. 16.↵
    Hachiya, T. et al. Genetic Predisposition to Ischemic Stroke: A Polygenic Risk Score. Stroke 48, 253–258 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Hachiya, T. et al. Genome-wide polygenic score and the risk of ischemic stroke in a prospective cohort: The Hisayama study. Stroke 759–765 (2020) doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027520.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Mishra, A. et al. Stroke genetics informs drug discovery and risk prediction across ancestries. Nature (2022) doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05165-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Howe, L. J. et al. Polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease and subsequent event risk amongst established cases. Hum Mol Genet 29, 1388–1395 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Dahabreh, I. J. & Kent, D. M. Index Event Bias as an Explanation for the Paradoxes of Recurrence Risk Research. https://jamanetwork.com/.
  21. 21.↵
    Ni, G. et al. A Comparison of Ten Polygenic Score Methods for Psychiatric Disorders Applied Across Multiple Cohorts. Biol Psychiatry 90, 611–620 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.
    Hahn, G. et al. A Smoothed Version of the Lassosum Penalty for Fitting Integrated Risk Models Using Summary Statistics or Individual-Level Data. Genes (Basel) 13, (2022).
  23. 23.
    Osterman, M. D., Kinzy, T. G. & Bailey, J. N. C. Polygenic Risk Scores. Curr Protoc 1, (2021).
  24. 24.
    Zhao, Z., Song, J., Wang, T. & Lu, Q. Polygenic risk scores: effect estimation and model optimization. Quantitative Biology 0, 0 (2021).
  25. 25.
    Ma, Y. & Zhou, X. Genetic prediction of complex traits with polygenic scores: a statistical review. Trends in Genetics 37, 995–1011 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    Pain, O. et al. Evaluation of polygenic prediction methodology within a reference-standardized framework. PLoS Genet 17, 1–22 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.
    Zhang, Q., Privé, F., Vilhjálmsson, B. & Speed, D. Improved genetic prediction of complex traits from individual-level data or summary statistics. Nat Commun 12, 1–9 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    Yang, S. & Zhou, X. PGS-server: accuracy, robustness and transferability of polygenic score methods for biobank scale studies. Brief Bioinform 23, 1–19 (2022).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Wang, Y., Tsuo, K., Kanai, M., Neale, B. M. & Martin, A. R. Challenges and opportunities for developing more generalizable polygenic risk scores. 293–320 (2022).
  30. 30.↵
    Kulm, S., Marderstein, A., Mezey, J. & Elemento, O. A systematic framework for assessing the clinical impact of polygenic risk scores. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.06.20055574 (2021) doi:10.1101/2020.04.06.20055574.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Nagai, A. et al. Overview of the BioBank Japan Project: Study design and profile. J Epidemiol 27, S2–S8 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Hirata, M. et al. Cross-sectional analysis of BioBank Japan clinical data: A large cohort of 200,000 patients with 47 common diseases. J Epidemiol 27, S9–S21 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Hirata, M. et al. Overview of BioBank Japan follow-up data in 32 diseases. J Epidemiol 27, S22–S28 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Chang, C. C. et al. Second-generation PLINK: Rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4, 1–16 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81, 559–575 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    Marees, A. T. et al. A tutorial on conducting genome-wide association studies: Quality control and statistical analysis. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 27, 1–10 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Choi, S. W., Mak, T. S. H. & O’Reilly, P. F. Tutorial: a guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nat Protoc 15, 2759–2772 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Koyama, S. et al. Population-specific and trans-ancestry genome-wide analyses identify distinct and shared genetic risk loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 52, 1169–1177 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Privé, F., Arbel, J. & Vilhjálmsson, B. J. LDpred2: Better, faster, stronger. Bioinformatics 36, 5424–5431 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Privé, F., Arbel, J., Aschard, H. & Vilhjálmsson, B. J. Identifying and correcting for misspecificationsin GWAS summary statistics and polygenic scores. Human Genetics and Genomics Advances 100136 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.xhgg.2022.100136.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Ge, T., Chen, C. Y., Ni, Y., Feng, Y. C. A. & Smoller, J. W. Polygenic prediction via Bayesian regression and continuous shrinkage priors. Nat Commun 10, 1–10 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Ruan, Y. et al. Improving polygenic prediction in ancestrally diverse populations. Nat Genet (2022) doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01054-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Malik, R. et al. Multiancestry genome-wide association study of 520,000 subjects identifies 32 loci associated with stroke and stroke subtypes. Nat Genet 50, 524–537 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Nagelkerke N. J. D. A Note on a General Definition of the Coefficient of Determination. Biometrika 78, 691–692 (1991).
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    Wang, Y. et al. Global Biobank analyses provide lessons for developing polygenic risk scores across diverse cohorts. Cell Genomics 3, (2023).
  46. 46.↵
    Hindy, G. et al. Genome-wide polygenic score, clinical risk factors, and long-term trajectories of coronary artery disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2738–2746 (2020) doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.314856.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    Mitchell, R. E., et al. Strategies to investigate and mitigate collider bias in genetic and Mendelian randomisation studies of disease progression. PLoS Genetics vol. 19 Preprint at doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1010596 (2023).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Sep, S. J., Van Kuijk, S. M. & Smits, L. J. Index event bias: Problems with eliminating the paradox. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases vol. 23 2464 Preprint at doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.06.025 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    Levine, D. A. et al. Smoking and mortality in stroke survivors: Can we eliminate the paradox? Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 23, 1282–1290 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Altman, D. G. & Bland, J. M. Interaction revisited: The difference between two estimates. BMJ 326, 219 (2003).
  51. 51.↵
    Ishigaki, K. et al. Large-scale genome-wide association study in a Japanese population identifies novel susceptibility loci across different diseases. Nat Genet 52, 669–679 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Bulik-Sullivan, B. et al. LD score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 47, 291–295 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Cho, S. M. J. et al. Genetic, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical risk factors of recurrent coronary artery disease events: a population-based cohort study. Eur Heart J (2023) doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad380.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Weale, E. M. Quality control for genome-wide association studies. Methods Mol Biol (2010) doi:10.1007/978-1-60327-367-1_19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Akiyama, M. et al. Characterizing rare and low-frequency height-associated variants in the Japanese population. Nat Commun 10, (2019).
  56. 56.↵
    Privé, F., Vilhjálmsson, B. J., Aschard, H. & Blum, M. G. B. Making the Most of Clumping and Thresholding for Polygenic Scores. Am J Hum Genet 105, 1213–1221 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Chagnon, M., O’Loughlin, J., Engert, J. C., Karp, I. & Sylvestre, M. P. Missing single nucleotide polymorphisms in Genetic Risk Scores: A simulation study. PLoS One 13, 1–14 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Goldstein, B. A., Yang, L., Salfati, E. & Assimes, T. L. Contemporary Considerations for Constructing a Genetic Risk Score: An Empirical Approach. Genet Epidemiol 39, 439–445 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Wang, Y. et al. Global Biobank analyses provide lessons for developing polygenic risk scores across diverse cohorts. Cell Genomics 3, (2023).
  60. 60.↵
    Tadaka, S. et al. jMorp updates in 2020: Large enhancement of multi-omics data resources on the general Japanese population. Nucleic Acids Res 49, D536–D544 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    Restuadi, R. et al. Polygenic risk score analysis for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis leveraging cognitive performance, educational attainment and schizophrenia. European Journal of Human Genetics (2021) doi:10.1038/s41431-021-00885-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.
    Turley, P. et al. Multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association summary statistics using MTAG. Nat Genet 50, 229–237 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.
    Maier, R. M. et al. Improving genetic prediction by leveraging genetic correlations among human diseases and traits. Nat Commun 9, 1–17 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Ho, W. K. et al. European polygenic risk score for prediction of breast cancer shows similar performance in Asian women. Nat Commun 11, 1–11 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    Amariuta, T. et al. Improving the trans-ancestry portability of polygenic risk scores by prioritizing variants in predicted cell-type-specific regulatory elements. Nat Genet 52, 1346–1354 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted June 17, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Recurrent stroke prediction by applying a stroke polygenic risk score in the Japanese population
Naoki Kojima, Masaru Koido, Yunye He, Yuka Shimmori, Tsuyoshi Hachiya, BioBank Japan, Stéphanie Debette, Yoichiro Kamatani
medRxiv 2024.06.17.24309034; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.17.24309034
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area