Guidelines for Evaluating the Comparability of Down-Sampled GWAS Summary Statistics.

Proprietary genetic datasets are valuable for boosting the statistical power of genome-wide association studies (GWASs), but their use can restrict investigators from publicly sharing the resulting summary statistics. Although researchers can resort to sharing down-sampled versions that exclude restricted data, down-sampling reduces power and might change the genetic etiology of the phenotype being studied. These problems are further complicated when using multivariate GWAS methods, such as genomic structural equation modeling (Genomic SEM), that model genetic correlations across multiple traits. Here, we propose a systematic approach to assess the comparability of GWAS summary statistics that include versus exclude restricted data. Illustrating this approach with a multivariate GWAS of an externalizing factor, we assessed the impact of down-sampling on (1) the strength of the genetic signal in univariate GWASs, (2) the factor loadings and model fit in multivariate Genomic SEM, (3) the strength of the genetic signal at the factor level, (4) insights from gene-property analyses, (5) the pattern of genetic correlations with other traits, and (6) polygenic score analyses in independent samples. For the externalizing GWAS, although down-sampling resulted in a loss of genetic signal and fewer genome-wide significant loci; the factor loadings and model fit, gene-property analyses, genetic correlations, and polygenic score analyses were found robust. Given the importance of data sharing for the advancement of open science, we recommend that investigators who generate and share down-sampled summary statistics report these analyses as accompanying documentation to support other researchers' use of the summary statistics.

Characterizing the phenotypic and genetic structure of psychopathology in UK Biobank.

Mental conditions exhibit a higher-order transdiagnostic factor structure which helps to explain the widespread comorbidity observed in psychopathology. However, the phenotypic and genetic structures of psychopathology may differ, raising questions about the validity and utility of these factors. Here, we study the phenotypic and genetic factor structures of ten psychiatric conditions using UK Biobank and public genomic data. Although the factor structure of psychopathology was generally genetically and phenotypically consistent, conditions related to externalizing (e.g., alcohol use disorder) and compulsivity (e.g., eating disorders) exhibited cross-level disparities in their relationships with other conditions, plausibly due to environmental influences. Domain-level factors, especially thought disorder and internalizing factors, were more informative than a general psychopathology factor in genome-wide association and polygenic index analyses. Collectively, our findings enhance the understanding of comorbidity and shared etiology, highlight the intricate interplay between genes and environment, and offer guidance for psychiatric research using polygenic indices.

Guidelines for Evaluating the Comparability of Down-Sampled GWAS Summary Statistics.

Proprietary genetic datasets are valuable for boosting the statistical power of genome-wide association studies (GWASs), but their use can restrict investigators from publicly sharing the resulting summary statistics. Although researchers can resort to sharing down-sampled versions that exclude restricted data, down-sampling reduces power and might change the genetic etiology of the phenotype being studied. These problems are further complicated when using multivariate GWAS methods, such as genomic structural equation modeling (Genomic SEM), that model genetic correlations across multiple traits. Here, we propose a systematic approach to assess the comparability of GWAS summary statistics that include versus exclude restricted data. Illustrating this approach with a multivariate GWAS of an externalizing factor, we assessed the impact of down-sampling on (1) the strength of the genetic signal in univariate GWASs, (2) the factor loadings and model fit in multivariate Genomic SEM, (3) the strength of the genetic signal at the factor level, (4) insights from gene-property analyses, (5) the pattern of genetic correlations with other traits, and (6) polygenic score analyses in independent samples. For the externalizing GWAS, down-sampling resulted in a loss of genetic signal and fewer genome-wide significant loci, while the factor loadings and model fit, gene-property analyses, genetic correlations, and polygenic score analyses are robust. Given the importance of data sharing for the advancement of open science, we recommend that investigators who share down-sampled summary statistics report these analyses as accompanying documentation to support other researchers' use of the summary statistics.

Brain volumes, thicknesses, and surface areas as mediators of genetic factors and childhood adversity on intelligence.

Although genetic and environmental factors influence general intelligence (g-factor), few studies examined the neuroanatomical measures mediating environmental and genetic effects on intelligence. Here, we investigate the brain volumes, cortical mean thicknesses, and cortical surface areas mediating the effects of the g-factor polygenic score (gPGS) and childhood adversity on the g-factor in the UK Biobank. We first examined the global and regional brain measures that contribute to the g-factor. Most regions contributed to the g-factor through global brain size. Parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) regions were not more associated with the g-factor than non-PFIT regions. After adjusting for global brain size and regional associations, only a few regions predicted intelligence and were included in the mediation analyses. We conducted mediation analyses on global measures, regional volumes, mean thicknesses, and surface areas, separately. Total brain volume mediated 7.04% of the gPGS' effect on the g-factor and 2.50% of childhood adversity's effect on the g-factor. In comparison, the fraction of the gPGS and childhood adversity's effects mediated by individual regional volumes, surfaces, and mean thicknesses was 10-15 times smaller. Therefore, genetic and environmental effects on intelligence may be mediated to a larger extent by other brain properties.