Polygenic risk prediction: why and when out-of-sample prediction R2 can exceed SNP-based heritability

Xiaotong Wang, Alicia Walker, Joana A. Revez, Naomi R. Wray*, Abdel Abdellaoui, Conor V. Dolan, Jouke Jan Hottenga, Hamdi Mbarek, Christel M. Middeldorp, Yuri Milaneschi, Michel G. Nivard, Wouter J. Peyrot, Danielle Posthuma, Peter M. Visscher*, Gonneke Willemsen, Dorret I. Boomsma, E. J.C. de Geus, Gerome Breen, Anders D. Børglum, Patrick F. SullivanMajor Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In polygenic score (PGS) analysis, the coefficient of determination (R2) is a key statistic to evaluate efficacy. R2 is the proportion of phenotypic variance explained by the PGS, calculated in a cohort that is independent of the genome-wide association study (GWAS) that provided estimates of allelic effect sizes. The SNP-based heritability (hSNP2, the proportion of total phenotypic variances attributable to all common SNPs) is the theoretical upper limit of the out-of-sample prediction R2. However, in real data analyses R2 has been reported to exceed hSNP2, which occurs in parallel with the observation that hSNP2 estimates tend to decline as the number of cohorts being meta-analyzed increases. Here, we quantify why and when these observations are expected. Using theory and simulation, we show that if heterogeneities in cohort-specific hSNP2 exist, or if genetic correlations between cohorts are less than one, hSNP2 estimates can decrease as the number of cohorts being meta-analyzed increases. We derive conditions when the out-of-sample prediction R2 will be greater than hSNP2 and show the validity of our derivations with real data from a binary trait (major depression) and a continuous trait (educational attainment). Our research calls for a better approach to integrating information from multiple cohorts to address issues of between-cohort heterogeneity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1207-1215
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Human Genetics
Volume110
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 6 Jul 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council ( 1173790 , 1113400 ), Australian Research Council ( FL180100072 ), and the National Institute of Mental Health ( R01MH124871 , R01MH121545 ). This work would not have been possible without the contributions of the investigators who comprise the PGC-MDD working group. The procedures followed in the PGC-MDD working group were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and that proper informed consent was obtained. Data analysis was conducted under the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approval HE002938 . For a full list of acknowledgments and ethical statements of all individual cohorts, please see the original publications. The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse ( U01 MH109528 and U01 MH1095320 ). Some statistical analyses were carried out on the NL Genetic Cluster Computer ( http://www.geneticcluster.org/ ) hosted by SURFsara who support the PGC through grants to Danielle Posthuma. GWAS summary statistics from 23andMe were included in the meta-analyzed GWAS summary statistics. We thank the customers, research participants, and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible. The study protocol used by 23andMe was approved by an external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board. The graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com .

Funding Information:
We acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (1173790, 1113400), Australian Research Council (FL180100072), and the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH124871, R01MH121545). This work would not have been possible without the contributions of the investigators who comprise the PGC-MDD working group. The procedures followed in the PGC-MDD working group were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and that proper informed consent was obtained. Data analysis was conducted under the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approval HE002938. For a full list of acknowledgments and ethical statements of all individual cohorts, please see the original publications. The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01 MH109528 and U01 MH1095320). Some statistical analyses were carried out on the NL Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org/) hosted by SURFsara who support the PGC through grants to Danielle Posthuma. GWAS summary statistics from 23andMe were included in the meta-analyzed GWAS summary statistics. We thank the customers, research participants, and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible. The study protocol used by 23andMe was approved by an external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board. The graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com. Study motivation, N.R.W. A.M.McI.; theory, X.W. P.M.V. N.R.W.; simulations & analyses, X.W.; data preparation, A.W. J.A.R. G.N. M.J.A.; first draft, X.W. N.R.W. P.M.V.; final draft, all authors read and approved the manuscript. The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 American Society of Human Genetics

Funding

We acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council ( 1173790 , 1113400 ), Australian Research Council ( FL180100072 ), and the National Institute of Mental Health ( R01MH124871 , R01MH121545 ). This work would not have been possible without the contributions of the investigators who comprise the PGC-MDD working group. The procedures followed in the PGC-MDD working group were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and that proper informed consent was obtained. Data analysis was conducted under the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approval HE002938 . For a full list of acknowledgments and ethical statements of all individual cohorts, please see the original publications. The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse ( U01 MH109528 and U01 MH1095320 ). Some statistical analyses were carried out on the NL Genetic Cluster Computer ( http://www.geneticcluster.org/ ) hosted by SURFsara who support the PGC through grants to Danielle Posthuma. GWAS summary statistics from 23andMe were included in the meta-analyzed GWAS summary statistics. We thank the customers, research participants, and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible. The study protocol used by 23andMe was approved by an external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board. The graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com . We acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (1173790, 1113400), Australian Research Council (FL180100072), and the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH124871, R01MH121545). This work would not have been possible without the contributions of the investigators who comprise the PGC-MDD working group. The procedures followed in the PGC-MDD working group were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and that proper informed consent was obtained. Data analysis was conducted under the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approval HE002938. For a full list of acknowledgments and ethical statements of all individual cohorts, please see the original publications. The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01 MH109528 and U01 MH1095320). Some statistical analyses were carried out on the NL Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org/) hosted by SURFsara who support the PGC through grants to Danielle Posthuma. GWAS summary statistics from 23andMe were included in the meta-analyzed GWAS summary statistics. We thank the customers, research participants, and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible. The study protocol used by 23andMe was approved by an external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board. The graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com. Study motivation, N.R.W. A.M.McI.; theory, X.W. P.M.V. N.R.W.; simulations & analyses, X.W.; data preparation, A.W. J.A.R. G.N. M.J.A.; first draft, X.W. N.R.W. P.M.V.; final draft, all authors read and approved the manuscript. The authors declare no competing interests.

FundersFunder number
National Institute of Mental HealthR01MH121545, R01MH124871, HE002938
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute on Drug AbuseU01 MH1095320, U01 MH109528
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Australian Research CouncilFL180100072
Australian Research Council
National Health and Medical Research Council1113400, 1173790
National Health and Medical Research Council

    Keywords

    • meta-analysis
    • out-of-sample prediction R
    • polygenic risk prediction
    • SNP-based heritability

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Polygenic risk prediction: why and when out-of-sample prediction R2 can exceed SNP-based heritability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this