The contribution of genetic variants to disease depends on the ruler - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

. 2014 Nov;15(11):765-76.

doi: 10.1038/nrg3786. Epub 2014 Sep 16.

Affiliations

Review

The contribution of genetic variants to disease depends on the ruler

John S Witte et al. Nat Rev Genet. 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Our understanding of the genetic basis of disease has evolved from descriptions of overall heritability or familiality to the identification of large numbers of risk loci. One can quantify the impact of such loci on disease using a plethora of measures, which can guide future research decisions. However, different measures can attribute varying degrees of importance to a variant. In this Analysis, we consider and contrast the most commonly used measures - specifically, the heritability of disease liability, approximate heritability, sibling recurrence risk, overall genetic variance using a logarithmic relative risk scale, the area under the receiver-operating curve for risk prediction and the population attributable fraction - and give guidelines for their use that should be explicitly considered when assessing the contribution of genetic variants to disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1. Different measures of genetic effects on disease

A number of different measures can be used to assess how much known genetic factors contribute to the overall genetic variation in disease. These include: a. heritability, b. sibling relative risk, c. log relative risk genetic variance, d. area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and e. population attributable fraction. These measures have their bases in traditionally distinct disciplines such as quantitative genetics and epidemiology, which have recently begun to coalesce. While the latter were originally developed to address different questions, they are presently being repurposed to assess how much genetic variation cab be explained. We compare these measures via simulation and applications.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Empirical evaluation of measures of genetic effects

Comparison of heritability, approximate heritability, sibling relative risk, log relative risk genetic variance, and area under the curve (AUC) explained across a range of complex disease architectures. The measures are calculated for a single causal variant with risk allele frequency (RAF) = 0.01, 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 0.99 and genetic relative risk (RR) ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 (assuming multiplicative model). The overall disease risk is assumed = 0.01, and the total sibling relative risk = 5, which gives an overall genetic heritability on the liability scale = 0.55 and a maximum AUC = 0.95. The percentage of heritability, sibling risk, and logRR genetic variance explained is quite modest for low RRs and small RAF, but as these increase the measures start to materially differ. Heritability is always one of the smallest measures, and is overestimated by the approximate heritability as the RR increases. The sibling relative risk and AUC are generally the largest measures for lower RAFs.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Application of measures to four diseases

Comparison of commonly used measures for assessing the impact of known risk variants on four diseases: a. breast cancer (65 variants), b. Crohn’s disease (143 variants), c. rheumatoid arthritis (36 variants), and d. schizophrenia (32 variants). The measures are: heritability explained; approximation of heritability explained; sibling recurrence risk explained; logRR genetic variance explained; and the proportion of area under the curve (pAUC). Each line corresponds to an individual risk variant, indicating the percentage of each measure (e.g., total variability) it explains. Lines are different colors depending on the relative risk (estimated by the odds ratio, OR) for each variant. The percentage axes are on a squared scale.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Aspects of disease heritability: known, hiding, and missing

A growing proportion of the total heritability estimated from family studies can be explained by known variants detected in existing genome-wide association studies (bottom). This is one of the key measures considered here. The remaining heritability can be broken into that which is ‘hiding’ versus ‘still missing’. The hiding heritability can be estimated from genome-wide arrays using the Genetic Relatedness Estimation through Maximum Likelihood (GREML) model. The still-missing heritability is that which may remain even after genome-wide association studies, reflecting for example genetic different architectures (e.g., rare variants). Note that the total heritability may be biased upward due to confounding by non-additive genetic or non-genetic factors.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, Yang J. Five years of GWAS discovery. Am J Hum Genet. 2012;90:7–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Witte JS. Genome-wide association studies and beyond. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:9–20. 4 p following 20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Manolio TA, et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature. 2009;461:747–53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wray NR, Yang J, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. The genetic interpretation of area under the ROC curve in genomic profiling. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1000864. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yang J, et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat Genet. 2010;42:565–9. - PMC - PubMed

Explores the relationship between heritability on disease and liability scales

    1. Slatkin M. Exchangeable models of complex inherited diseases. Genetics. 2008;179:2253–61. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Falconer D. The inheritance of liability to certain diseases, estimates from the incidence among relatives. Annals of Human Genetics. 1965;29:51–76.

A formal derivation of the relationship between disease risk in relatives and heritability plus a thoughtful exploration of scenarios and caveats

    1. Falconer D, Mackay TF. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Pearson Education Ltd; Harlow, England: 1996.
    1. Risch NJ. Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium. Nature. 2000;405:847–56. - PubMed

Explains variance explained by a single locus on the disease and liability scale

    1. Purcell SM, et al. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature. 2009;460:748–52. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stahl EA, et al. Bayesian inference analyses of the polygenic architecture of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Genet. 2012;44:483–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. James JW. Frequency in relatives for an all-or-none trait. Ann Hum Genet. 1971;35:47–9. - PubMed
    1. Pharoah PD, et al. Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet. 2002;31:33–6. - PubMed

A clear presentation of the log relative risk model

    1. Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, Ponder BA. Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2796–803. - PubMed
    1. Park JH, et al. Estimation of effect size distribution from genome-wide association studies and implications for future discoveries. Nat Genet. 2010;42:570–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wray NR, Goddard ME. Multi-locus models of genetic risk of disease. Genome Med. 2010;2:10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pharoah PD, Day NE, Duffy S, Easton DF, Ponder BA. Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 1997;71:800–9. - PubMed
    1. Jostins L, et al. Host-microbe interactions have shaped the genetic architecture of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2012;491:119–24. - PMC - PubMed

Considers the limitations of the population attributable fraction

    1. Saha S, Chant D, Welham J, McGrath J. A systematic review of the prevalence of schizophrenia. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e141. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alonso A, Logroscino G, Jick SS, Hernan MA. Incidence and lifetime risk of motor neuron disease in the United Kingdom: a population-based study. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16:745–51. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wray NR, et al. Polygenic methods and their application to psychiatric traits. Journal of Childhood Psychology and Psychiatry. 2014 - PubMed
    1. Lee SH, et al. Estimating the proportion of variation in susceptibility to schizophrenia captured by common SNPs. Nat Genet. 2012;44:247–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;88:76–82. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Do CB, Hinds DA, Francke U, Eriksson N. Comparison of family history and SNPs for predicting risk of complex disease. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002973. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zaitlen N, et al. Informed conditioning on clinical covariates increases power in case-control association studies. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1003032. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources