Polygenic Prediction of Complex Human Traits Arxiv:2101.05870V1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
From Genotype to Phenotype: polygenic prediction of complex human traits Timothy G. Raben1, Louis Lello1,2, Erik Widen1, and Stephen D.H. Hsu1,2 1Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824 2Genomic Prediction, North Brunswick, New Jersey, 08902 Abstract Decoding the genome confers the capability to predict characteristics of the organism (phenotype) from DNA (genotype). We describe the present status and future prospects of genomic prediction of complex traits in humans. Some highly heritable complex phenotypes such as height and other quantitative traits can already be predicted with reasonable accuracy from DNA alone. For many diseases, including important common conditions such as coro- nary artery disease, breast cancer, type I and II diabetes, individuals with outlier polygenic scores (e.g., top few percent) have been shown to have 5 or even 10 times higher risk than average. Several psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and autism also fall into this arXiv:2101.05870v1 [q-bio.GN] 14 Jan 2021 category. We discuss related topics such as the genetic architecture of complex traits, sibling validation of polygenic scores, and applications to adult health, in vitro fertilization (embryo selection), and genetic engineering. A version of this article was prepared for Genomic Prediction of Complex Traits, Springer Nature book series Methods in Molecular Biology. Keywords: genomics, complex trait prediction, PRS, in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering 1 1 Introduction I, on the other hand, knew nothing, except ... physics and mathematics and an ability to turn my hand to new things. — Francis Crick The challenge of decoding the genome has loomed large over biology since the time of Wat- son and Crick. Initially, decoding referred to the relationship between DNA and specic proteins or molecular mechanisms, but the ultimate goal is to deduce the relationship between DNA and phenotype — the character of the organism itself. How does Nature encode the traits of the organ- ism in DNA? In this review we describe recent advances toward this goal, which have resulted from the application of machine learning (ML) to large genomic data sets. Genomic prediction is the real decoding of the genome: the creation of mathematical models which map genotypes to complex traits. It is a peculiarity of ML and articial intelligence (AI) applied to complex systems that these methods can often “solve” a problem without explicating, in a manner that humans can absorb, the intricate mechanisms that lie intermediate between input and output. For example, AlphaGo [1] achieved superhuman mastery of an ancient game that had been under serious study for thousands of years. Yet nowhere in the resulting neural network with millions of connection strengths is there a human-comprehensible guide to Go strategy or game dynamics. Similarly, ge- nomic prediction has produced mathematical functions which predict quantitative human traits with surprising accuracy — e.g., height, bone density, and cholesterol or lipoprotein A levels in blood (see Table 1); using typically thousands of genetic variants as input (see next section for details) — but without explicitly revealing the role of these variants in actual biochemical mech- anisms. Characterizing these mechanisms — which are involved in phenomena such as bone growth, lipid metabolism, hormonal regulation, protein interactions — will be a project which takes much longer to complete. If recent trends persist, in particular the continued growth of large genotype | phenotype data sets, we will likely have good genomic predictors for a host of human traits within the next decade. Here good can mean capturing most of the a priori estimated heritability of the trait. 2 Phenotype Correlation # active SNPs Height 0.639¹0.017º 22, 000¹3000º Heel bone density 0.449¹0.015º 15, 000¹4000º BMI 0.346¹0.0009 22, 000¹2000º Educational attainment 0.272¹0.022º 17, 000¹7000º Apolipoprotein A 0.417¹0.006º 15, 000¹2,000º Apolipoprotein B 0.38¹0.01º 9, 000¹2,000º Cholesterol 0.310¹0.007º 10, 000¹3,000º Direct bilirubin 0.51¹0.01º 4, 000¹4,000º HDL cholesterol 0.46¹0.01º 17, 000¹2,000º Lipoprotein A 0.757¹0.008º 3, 000¹1,000º Platelet count 0.45¹0.01º 15, 000¹800º Total bilirubin 0.56¹0.01º 5, 000¹3,000º Total protein 0.32¹0.01º 15, 000¹1,000º Triglycerides 0.348¹0.008º 11, 000¹4,000º Table 1: Examples of quantitative trait prediction. The last 10 traits listed are all obtained from standard blood test measurements (terminology from UK Biobank data elds). Uncertainties given in parenthesis are the standard deviation obtained from validation of 5 dierent training runs, each of which produce a slightly dierent predictor. Predictors were trained with data and methods analogous to [2]. 3 There are already many disease risk predictors which fall somewhat short of this standard but nevertheless have important practical utility in medicine (e.g., for early screening and diagnosis), as we will discuss below. We can roughly estimate how predictor performance increases as a function of training data size (see gure 1). The estimates suggest that progress is data limited: algorithms and computational resources are not the bottleneck. In the following sections we will discuss (1) Current status of human genomic prediction: examples of quantitative trait prediction and prediction of disease risk, out of sample validation of predictors, sibling validation, (2) Methods, Genetic Architecture, and Theory, and (3) Applications to In Vitro Fertilization and Gene Editing. The nal section will discuss some (near term) future projections. 0.65 ● 0.65 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.60 ● 0.60 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● AUC ● ● ● 0.55 hypertension 0.55 ● hypothyroidism type 2 diabetes ● 0.50 0.50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Log[N/1000] Figure 1: Prediction quality measured by AUC for three conditions (hypertension, hypothy- roidism, type 2 diabetes) as a function of training sample size # . Evidence is strong that further increases in sample size will lead to improvement in accuracy. Reproduced from [2]. 4 2 Present Status: 2020 Technological advances have reduced the (2020) cost of whole genome sequencing to under $1k and the cost of SNP array genotyping to roughly $20 [3]. In this section we will give an overview of results obtained from training on data sets obtained using SNP arrays. For quantitative traits sample sizes were in excess of 400k individuals. For disease risk training (polygenic risk scores, or PRS) typical sample sizes were tens of thousands of cases and at least as many controls, typically individuals late in life for whom medical records are available. See [2] for specic details. 2.1 Quantitative traits: height, bone, and blood In 2012 one of the authors [4] estimated that training on a few hundred thousand SNP genotypes using L1 penalization (see next section for details) would capture most of the common SNP her- itability for height. In 2017, with the release of the UK Biobank data set of 500k genomes, this prediction came true. Accurate genomic prediction of adult height, with standard deviation of ∼ 3 cm, was demonstrated in [5], and has been subsequently replicated by other groups [6, 7], as well as in studies of siblings. See gures 2 and 6 for a demonstration of the prediction accuracy. In 2020 the GIANT collaboration, in a GWAS of roughly 4 million individuals, identied ∼10k height SNPs at genome-wide statistical signicance. The variance accounted for by the L1 pre- dictor and by the predictor produced from the 2020 GIANT GWAS are roughly equal to the pre- viously estimated narrow sense heritability accounted for by common SNPs [8, 9]. Genomic predictors which capture a signicant fraction of heritability exist for other quan- titative traits, including bone density, educational attainment / cognitive abilities, and a number of blood measurements such as platelet count and lipoprotein A levels, see table 1. 2.2 Disease Risks: Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) Polygenic risk predictors for dozens of important disease conditions, including, e.g., diabetes, breast cancer, coronary artery disease, hypertension, schizophrenia, autism, and many more, 5 190 men women ) 180 cm ( 170 160 Predicted height 150 150 160 170 180 190 200 Measured height(cm) Figure 2: Height prediction in males and females not used in predictor training. Predicted height computed from ∼20k SNPs is shown on vertical axis, and actual height on horizontal axis. In a typical bin the standard deviation of the distribution of actual heights relative to prediction is ∼ 3cm. While it is possible to nd individuals whose height deviates from prediction by signicantly more than a few cm, most of the population density is concentrated close to the prediction line. Correlation between predicted and actual (z-scored) height is ∼ 0.65. Reproduced from [5]. have been published and validated by many research groups [2, 10–12]. We can roughly characterize the performance of these polygenic risk predictors as follows: individuals with very high PRS will typically have an incidence rate which is many times higher than the population average. For example, in [2] we found that for atrial brillation, 99th per- centile PRS implies ∼10 times higher likelihood of case status. Similarly, low PRS indicates below average risk for the condition: we can identify individuals whose risk is an order of magnitude lower than in the general population. 6 Identication of outliers is possible even though the standard performance metric AUC (Area Under ROC Curve) value is modest: e.g., AUC ∼ 0.6. This is because the absolute risk as function of PRS is highly nonlinear: outlier (e.g., 99th percentile) risk can be very high even if risk for individuals near the middle of the PRS distribution varies only modestly — see gure 3, which illustrates risk dierentiation for the example phenotypes breast cancer and hypothyroidism. We report below on further explicit results.