Pitfalls in performing genome-wide association studies on ratio traits.

IF 3.3 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Zachary R McCaw, Rounak Dey, Hari Somineni, David Amar, Sumit Mukherjee, Kaitlin Sandor, Theofanis Karaletsos, Daphne Koller, Hugues Aschard, George Davey Smith, Daniel MacArthur, Colm O'Dushlaine, Thomas W Soare
{"title":"Pitfalls in performing genome-wide association studies on ratio traits.","authors":"Zachary R McCaw, Rounak Dey, Hari Somineni, David Amar, Sumit Mukherjee, Kaitlin Sandor, Theofanis Karaletsos, Daphne Koller, Hugues Aschard, George Davey Smith, Daniel MacArthur, Colm O'Dushlaine, Thomas W Soare","doi":"10.1016/j.xhgg.2025.100406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) are often performed on ratios composed of a numerator trait divided by a denominator trait. Examples include body mass index (BMI) and the waist-to-hip ratio, among many others. Explicitly or implicitly, the goal of forming the ratio is typically to adjust for an association between the numerator and denominator. While forming ratios may be clinically expedient, there are several important issues with performing GWAS on ratios. Forming a ratio does not \"adjust\" for the denominator in the sense of conditioning on it, and it is unclear whether associations with ratios are attributable to the numerator, the denominator, or both. Here we demonstrate that associations arising in ratio GWAS can be entirely denominator driven, implying that at least some associations uncovered by ratio GWAS may be due solely to a putative adjustment variable. In a survey of 10 common ratio traits, we find that the ratio model disagrees with the adjusted model (performing GWAS on the numerator while conditioning on the denominator) at around 1/3 of loci. Using BMI as an example, we show that variants detected by only the ratio model are more strongly associated with the denominator (height), while variants detected by only the adjusted model are more strongly associated with the numerator (weight). Although the adjusted model provides effect sizes with a clearer interpretation, it is susceptible to collider bias. We propose and validate a simple method of correcting for the genetic component of collider bias via leave-one-chromosome-out polygenic scoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":34530,"journal":{"name":"HGG Advances","volume":" ","pages":"100406"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HGG Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2025.100406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) are often performed on ratios composed of a numerator trait divided by a denominator trait. Examples include body mass index (BMI) and the waist-to-hip ratio, among many others. Explicitly or implicitly, the goal of forming the ratio is typically to adjust for an association between the numerator and denominator. While forming ratios may be clinically expedient, there are several important issues with performing GWAS on ratios. Forming a ratio does not "adjust" for the denominator in the sense of conditioning on it, and it is unclear whether associations with ratios are attributable to the numerator, the denominator, or both. Here we demonstrate that associations arising in ratio GWAS can be entirely denominator driven, implying that at least some associations uncovered by ratio GWAS may be due solely to a putative adjustment variable. In a survey of 10 common ratio traits, we find that the ratio model disagrees with the adjusted model (performing GWAS on the numerator while conditioning on the denominator) at around 1/3 of loci. Using BMI as an example, we show that variants detected by only the ratio model are more strongly associated with the denominator (height), while variants detected by only the adjusted model are more strongly associated with the numerator (weight). Although the adjusted model provides effect sizes with a clearer interpretation, it is susceptible to collider bias. We propose and validate a simple method of correcting for the genetic component of collider bias via leave-one-chromosome-out polygenic scoring.

在比率性状上进行全基因组关联研究的陷阱。
全基因组关联研究(GWAS)通常是由分子性状除以分母性状组成的比率进行的。例子包括身体质量指数(BMI)和腰臀比等。无论显式还是隐式,形成比率的目标通常是调整分子和分母之间的关联。虽然形成比率可能是临床上的权宜之计,但在比率上执行GWAS有几个重要问题。形成一个比率并没有“调整”分母,也不清楚与比率的关联是归因于分子,分母,还是两者兼而有之。在这里,我们证明了在比率GWAS中产生的关联可以完全是由分母驱动的,这意味着至少一些由比率GWAS发现的关联可能仅仅是由于一个假定的调整变量。在对10个常见比例性状的调查中,我们发现在大约1/3的位点上,比例模型与调整后的模型(在分子上进行GWAS,在分母上进行调节)不一致。以BMI为例,我们发现仅通过比例模型检测到的变量与分母(身高)的相关性更强,而仅通过调整模型检测到的变量与分子(体重)的相关性更强。虽然调整后的模型提供了更清晰的效应大小解释,但它容易受到碰撞器偏差的影响。我们提出并验证了一种简单的方法,通过留下一条染色体的多基因评分来纠正对撞机偏差的遗传成分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HGG Advances
HGG Advances Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
69
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信