评估多基因风险评分以区分1型和2型糖尿病

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Muhammad Shoaib, Qiang Ye, Heidi IglayReger, Meng H. Tan, Michael Boehnke, Charles F. Burant, Scott A. Soleimanpour, Sarah A. Gagliano Taliun
{"title":"评估多基因风险评分以区分1型和2型糖尿病","authors":"Muhammad Shoaib,&nbsp;Qiang Ye,&nbsp;Heidi IglayReger,&nbsp;Meng H. Tan,&nbsp;Michael Boehnke,&nbsp;Charles F. Burant,&nbsp;Scott A. Soleimanpour,&nbsp;Sarah A. Gagliano Taliun","doi":"10.1002/gepi.22521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) quantify the genetic liability to disease and are calculated using an individual's genotype profile and disease-specific genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. Type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes both are determined in part by genetic loci. Correctly differentiating between types of diabetes is crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment. PRS have the potential to address possible misclassification of T1D and T2D. Here we evaluated PRS models for T1D and T2D in European genetic ancestry participants from the UK Biobank (UKB) and then in the Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI). Specifically, we investigated the utility of T1D and T2D PRS to discriminate between T1D, T2D, and controls in unrelated UKB individuals of European ancestry. We derived PRS models using external non-UKB GWAS. The T1D PRS model with the best discrimination between T1D cases and controls (area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] = 0.805) also yielded the best discrimination of T1D from T2D cases in the UKB (AUC = 0.792) and separation in MGI (AUC = 0.686). In contrast, the best T2D model did not discriminate between T1D and T2D cases (AUC = 0.527). Our analysis suggests that a T1D PRS model based on independent single nucleotide polymorphisms may help differentiate between T1D, T2D, and controls in individuals of European genetic ancestry.</p>","PeriodicalId":12710,"journal":{"name":"Genetic Epidemiology","volume":"47 4","pages":"303-313"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gepi.22521","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of polygenic risk scores to differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Shoaib,&nbsp;Qiang Ye,&nbsp;Heidi IglayReger,&nbsp;Meng H. Tan,&nbsp;Michael Boehnke,&nbsp;Charles F. Burant,&nbsp;Scott A. Soleimanpour,&nbsp;Sarah A. Gagliano Taliun\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/gepi.22521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) quantify the genetic liability to disease and are calculated using an individual's genotype profile and disease-specific genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. Type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes both are determined in part by genetic loci. Correctly differentiating between types of diabetes is crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment. PRS have the potential to address possible misclassification of T1D and T2D. Here we evaluated PRS models for T1D and T2D in European genetic ancestry participants from the UK Biobank (UKB) and then in the Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI). Specifically, we investigated the utility of T1D and T2D PRS to discriminate between T1D, T2D, and controls in unrelated UKB individuals of European ancestry. We derived PRS models using external non-UKB GWAS. The T1D PRS model with the best discrimination between T1D cases and controls (area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] = 0.805) also yielded the best discrimination of T1D from T2D cases in the UKB (AUC = 0.792) and separation in MGI (AUC = 0.686). In contrast, the best T2D model did not discriminate between T1D and T2D cases (AUC = 0.527). Our analysis suggests that a T1D PRS model based on independent single nucleotide polymorphisms may help differentiate between T1D, T2D, and controls in individuals of European genetic ancestry.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetic Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"303-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gepi.22521\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetic Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gepi.22521\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetic Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gepi.22521","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多基因风险评分(PRS)量化疾病的遗传倾向性,并使用个体的基因型谱和疾病特异性全基因组关联研究(GWAS)汇总统计来计算。1型(T1D)和2型(T2D)糖尿病都部分由基因位点决定。正确区分糖尿病类型对于准确诊断和治疗至关重要。PRS有可能解决T1D和T2D可能的错误分类。在这里,我们评估了来自英国生物银行(UKB)和密歇根基因组计划(MGI)的欧洲遗传血统参与者的T1D和T2D的PRS模型。具体来说,我们研究了T1D和T2D PRS在无血缘关系的欧洲血统UKB个体中区分T1D、T2D和对照的效用。我们使用外部非ukb GWAS导出PRS模型。T1D PRS模型对T1D患者和对照组的区分效果最好(受试者操作曲线下面积[AUC] = 0.805),在UKB中对T1D患者和T2D患者的区分效果最好(AUC = 0.792),在MGI中对T1D患者的区分效果最好(AUC = 0.686)。相比之下,最佳T2D模型在T1D和T2D病例之间没有区别(AUC = 0.527)。我们的分析表明,基于独立单核苷酸多态性的T1D PRS模型可能有助于区分欧洲遗传血统个体的T1D, T2D和对照。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores to differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores to differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) quantify the genetic liability to disease and are calculated using an individual's genotype profile and disease-specific genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. Type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes both are determined in part by genetic loci. Correctly differentiating between types of diabetes is crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment. PRS have the potential to address possible misclassification of T1D and T2D. Here we evaluated PRS models for T1D and T2D in European genetic ancestry participants from the UK Biobank (UKB) and then in the Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI). Specifically, we investigated the utility of T1D and T2D PRS to discriminate between T1D, T2D, and controls in unrelated UKB individuals of European ancestry. We derived PRS models using external non-UKB GWAS. The T1D PRS model with the best discrimination between T1D cases and controls (area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] = 0.805) also yielded the best discrimination of T1D from T2D cases in the UKB (AUC = 0.792) and separation in MGI (AUC = 0.686). In contrast, the best T2D model did not discriminate between T1D and T2D cases (AUC = 0.527). Our analysis suggests that a T1D PRS model based on independent single nucleotide polymorphisms may help differentiate between T1D, T2D, and controls in individuals of European genetic ancestry.

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
Genetic Epidemiology
Genetic Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetic Epidemiology is a peer-reviewed journal for discussion of research on the genetic causes of the distribution of human traits in families and populations. Emphasis is placed on the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to human disease as revealed by genetic, epidemiological, and biologic investigations. Genetic Epidemiology primarily publishes papers in statistical genetics, a research field that is primarily concerned with development of statistical, bioinformatical, and computational models for analyzing genetic data. Incorporation of underlying biology and population genetics into conceptual models is favored. The Journal seeks original articles comprising either applied research or innovative statistical, mathematical, computational, or genomic methodologies that advance studies in genetic epidemiology. Other types of reports are encouraged, such as letters to the editor, topic reviews, and perspectives from other fields of research that will likely enrich the field of genetic epidemiology.
×
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