Polygenic prediction of major depressive disorder and related traits in African ancestries UK Biobank participants.

Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) over-represent European ancestries, neglecting all other ancestry groups and low-income nations. Consequently, polygenic risk scores (PRS) more accurately predict complex traits in Europeans than African Ancestries groups. Very few studies have looked at the transferability of European-derived PRS for behavioural and mental health phenotypes to Africans. We assessed the comparative accuracy of depression PRS trained on European and African Ancestries GWAS studies to predict major depressive disorder (MDD) and related traits in African ancestry participants from the UK Biobank. UK Biobank participants were selected based on Principal component analysis clustering with an African genetic similarity reference population, MDD was assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). PRS were computed using PRSice2 software using either European or African Ancestries GWAS summary statistics. PRS trained on European ancestry samples (246,363 cases) predicted case control status in Africans of the UK Biobank with similar accuracies (R2 = 2%, ß = 0.32, empirical p-value = 0.002) to PRS trained on far much smaller samples of African Ancestries participants from 23andMe, Inc. (5045 cases, R² = 1.8%, ß = 0.28, empirical p-value = 0.008). This suggests that prediction of MDD status from Africans to Africans had greater efficiency relative to discovery sample size than prediction of MDD from Europeans to Africans. Prediction of MDD status in African UK Biobank participants using GWAS findings of likely causal risk factors from European ancestries was non-significant. GWAS of MDD in European ancestries are inefficient for improving polygenic prediction in African samples; urgent MDD studies in Africa are needed.

BOADICEA breast cancer risk prediction model: updates to cancer incidences, tumour pathology and web interface.

BACKGROUND: The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) is a risk prediction model that is used to compute probabilities of carrying mutations in the high-risk breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and to estimate the future risks of developing breast or ovarian cancer. In this paper, we describe updates to the BOADICEA model that extend its capabilities, make it easier to use in a clinical setting and yield more accurate predictions. METHODS: We describe: (1) updates to the statistical model to include cancer incidences from multiple populations; (2) updates to the distributions of tumour pathology characteristics using new data on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and women with breast cancer from the general population; (3) improvements to the computational efficiency of the algorithm so that risk calculations now run substantially faster; and (4) updates to the model's web interface to accommodate these new features and to make it easier to use in a clinical setting. RESULTS: We present results derived using the updated model, and demonstrate that the changes have a significant impact on risk predictions. CONCLUSION: All updates have been implemented in a new version of the BOADICEA web interface that is now available for general use: http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/boadicea/.

Polygenic prediction of major depressive disorder and related traits in African ancestries UK Biobank participants.

Introduction: Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) over-represent European ancestries compared to the global population, neglecting all other ancestry groups and low-income nations. Consequently, polygenic risk scores (PRS) more accurately predict complex traits in Europeans than African Ancestries groups. Very few studies have looked at the transferability of European-derived PRS for behavioural and mental health phenotypes to non-Europeans. We assessed the comparative accuracy of PRS for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) trained on European and African Ancestries GWAS studies to predict MDD and related traits in African Ancestries participants from the UK Biobank. Methods: UK Biobank participants were selected based on Principal component analysis (PCA) clustering with an African genetic similarity reference population and MDD was assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) were computed using PRSice2 using either European or African Ancestries GWAS summary statistics. Results: PRS trained on European ancestry samples (246,363 cases) predicted case control status in Africans of the UK Biobank with similar accuracies (190 cases, R2=2%) to PRS trained on far much smaller samples of African Ancestries participants from 23andMe, Inc. (5045 cases, R2=1.8%). This suggests that prediction of MDD status from Africans to Africans had greater efficiency per unit increase in the discovery sample size than prediction of MDD from Europeans to Africans. Prediction of MDD status in African UK Biobank participants using GWAS findings of causal risk factors from European ancestries was non-significant. Conclusion: GWAS studies of MDD in European ancestries are an inefficient means of improving polygenic prediction accuracy in African samples.