多基因风险分数估算的基础方法:全面概述。

IF 3.8 2区 生物学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Human Genetics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-19 DOI:10.1007/s00439-024-02710-0
Carene Anne Alene Ndong Sima, Kathryn Step, Yolandi Swart, Haiko Schurz, Caitlin Uren, Marlo Möller
{"title":"多基因风险分数估算的基础方法:全面概述。","authors":"Carene Anne Alene Ndong Sima, Kathryn Step, Yolandi Swart, Haiko Schurz, Caitlin Uren, Marlo Möller","doi":"10.1007/s00439-024-02710-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as a promising tool for predicting disease risk and treatment outcomes using genomic data. Thousands of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), primarily involving populations of European ancestry, have supported the development of PRS models. However, these models have not been adequately evaluated in non-European populations, raising concerns about their clinical validity and predictive power across diverse groups. Addressing this issue requires developing novel risk prediction frameworks that leverage genetic characteristics across diverse populations, considering host-microbiome interactions and a broad range of health measures. One of the key aspects in evaluating PRS is understanding the strengths and limitations of various methods for constructing them. In this review, we analyze strengths and limitations of different methods for constructing PRS, including traditional weighted approaches and new methods such as Bayesian and Frequentist penalized regression approaches. Finally, we summarize recent advances in PRS calculation methods development, and highlight key areas for future research, including development of models robust across diverse populations by underlining the complex interplay between genetic variants across diverse ancestral backgrounds in disease risk as well as treatment response prediction. PRS hold great promise for improving disease risk prediction and personalized medicine; therefore, their implementation must be guided by careful consideration of their limitations, biases, and ethical implications to ensure that they are used in a fair, equitable, and responsible manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":13175,"journal":{"name":"Human Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"1265-1280"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522080/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodologies underpinning polygenic risk scores estimation: a comprehensive overview.\",\"authors\":\"Carene Anne Alene Ndong Sima, Kathryn Step, Yolandi Swart, Haiko Schurz, Caitlin Uren, Marlo Möller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00439-024-02710-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as a promising tool for predicting disease risk and treatment outcomes using genomic data. Thousands of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), primarily involving populations of European ancestry, have supported the development of PRS models. However, these models have not been adequately evaluated in non-European populations, raising concerns about their clinical validity and predictive power across diverse groups. Addressing this issue requires developing novel risk prediction frameworks that leverage genetic characteristics across diverse populations, considering host-microbiome interactions and a broad range of health measures. One of the key aspects in evaluating PRS is understanding the strengths and limitations of various methods for constructing them. In this review, we analyze strengths and limitations of different methods for constructing PRS, including traditional weighted approaches and new methods such as Bayesian and Frequentist penalized regression approaches. Finally, we summarize recent advances in PRS calculation methods development, and highlight key areas for future research, including development of models robust across diverse populations by underlining the complex interplay between genetic variants across diverse ancestral backgrounds in disease risk as well as treatment response prediction. PRS hold great promise for improving disease risk prediction and personalized medicine; therefore, their implementation must be guided by careful consideration of their limitations, biases, and ethical implications to ensure that they are used in a fair, equitable, and responsible manner.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1265-1280\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522080/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-024-02710-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-024-02710-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多基因风险评分(PRS)已成为利用基因组数据预测疾病风险和治疗结果的一种有前途的工具。数以千计的全基因组关联研究(GWAS)(主要涉及欧洲血统人群)支持了 PRS 模型的开发。然而,这些模型尚未在非欧洲血统人群中得到充分评估,从而引发了人们对这些模型在不同人群中的临床有效性和预测能力的担忧。要解决这一问题,就需要开发新型风险预测框架,利用不同人群的遗传特征,考虑宿主-微生物组的相互作用和广泛的健康指标。评估 PRS 的关键之一是了解构建 PRS 的各种方法的优势和局限性。在这篇综述中,我们分析了构建 PRS 的不同方法的优势和局限性,包括传统的加权方法和新方法,如贝叶斯和频数惩罚回归方法。最后,我们总结了 PRS 计算方法开发方面的最新进展,并强调了未来研究的关键领域,包括通过强调不同祖先背景的遗传变异在疾病风险和治疗反应预测中的复杂相互作用,开发适用于不同人群的稳健模型。PRS 在改善疾病风险预测和个性化医疗方面大有可为;因此,在实施 PRS 时必须仔细考虑其局限性、偏差和伦理影响,以确保以公平、公正和负责任的方式使用 PRS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodologies underpinning polygenic risk scores estimation: a comprehensive overview.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as a promising tool for predicting disease risk and treatment outcomes using genomic data. Thousands of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), primarily involving populations of European ancestry, have supported the development of PRS models. However, these models have not been adequately evaluated in non-European populations, raising concerns about their clinical validity and predictive power across diverse groups. Addressing this issue requires developing novel risk prediction frameworks that leverage genetic characteristics across diverse populations, considering host-microbiome interactions and a broad range of health measures. One of the key aspects in evaluating PRS is understanding the strengths and limitations of various methods for constructing them. In this review, we analyze strengths and limitations of different methods for constructing PRS, including traditional weighted approaches and new methods such as Bayesian and Frequentist penalized regression approaches. Finally, we summarize recent advances in PRS calculation methods development, and highlight key areas for future research, including development of models robust across diverse populations by underlining the complex interplay between genetic variants across diverse ancestral backgrounds in disease risk as well as treatment response prediction. PRS hold great promise for improving disease risk prediction and personalized medicine; therefore, their implementation must be guided by careful consideration of their limitations, biases, and ethical implications to ensure that they are used in a fair, equitable, and responsible manner.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Genetics
Human Genetics 生物-遗传学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
94
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Human Genetics is a monthly journal publishing original and timely articles on all aspects of human genetics. The Journal particularly welcomes articles in the areas of Behavioral genetics, Bioinformatics, Cancer genetics and genomics, Cytogenetics, Developmental genetics, Disease association studies, Dysmorphology, ELSI (ethical, legal and social issues), Evolutionary genetics, Gene expression, Gene structure and organization, Genetics of complex diseases and epistatic interactions, Genetic epidemiology, Genome biology, Genome structure and organization, Genotype-phenotype relationships, Human Genomics, Immunogenetics and genomics, Linkage analysis and genetic mapping, Methods in Statistical Genetics, Molecular diagnostics, Mutation detection and analysis, Neurogenetics, Physical mapping and Population Genetics. Articles reporting animal models relevant to human biology or disease are also welcome. Preference will be given to those articles which address clinically relevant questions or which provide new insights into human biology. Unless reporting entirely novel and unusual aspects of a topic, clinical case reports, cytogenetic case reports, papers on descriptive population genetics, articles dealing with the frequency of polymorphisms or additional mutations within genes in which numerous lesions have already been described, and papers that report meta-analyses of previously published datasets will normally not be accepted. The Journal typically will not consider for publication manuscripts that report merely the isolation, map position, structure, and tissue expression profile of a gene of unknown function unless the gene is of particular interest or is a candidate gene involved in a human trait or disorder.
×
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