henhaobio
Sign in

The American Journal of Human GeneticsGeneticsPeer-reviewed journal article

Multi-ancestry fine-mapping improves precision to identify causal genes in transcriptome-wide association studies

Zeyun LuiD, Shyamalika GopalaniD, Yuan DongiD, David V. ContiiD, Bogdan PaşaniuciD, Alexander GuseviD, Nicholas MancusoiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) are a powerful approach to identify genes whose expression associates with complex disease risk. However, non-causal genes can exhibit association signals due to confounding by linkage disequilibrium patterns (LD) and eQTL pleiotropy at genomic risk regions which necessitates fine-mapping of TWAS signals. Here, we present MA-FOCUS, a multi-ancestry framework for the improved identification of genes underlying traits of interest. We demonstrate that by leveraging differences in ancestry-specific patterns of LD and eQTL signals, MA-FOCUS consistently outperforms single-ancestry fine-mapping approaches with equivalent total sample size across multiple metrics. We perform 15 blood trait TWAS using genome-wide summary statistics (average NEA=511k, NAA=13k) and lymphoblastoid cell line eQTL data from cohorts of primarily European and African continental ancestries. We recapitulate evidence demonstrating shared genetic architectures for eQTL and blood traits between the two ancestry groups and observe that gene-level effects correlate 20% more strongly across ancestries compared with SNP-level effects. We perform fine-mapping using MA-FOCUS and find evidence that genes at TWAS risk regions are more likely to be shared across ancestries rather than ancestry-specific. Using multiple lines of evidence to validate our findings, we find gene sets produced by MA-FOCUS are more enriched in hematopoietic categories compared to alternative approaches (P = 1.73 x 10-16). Our work demonstrates that including, and appropriately accounting for, genetic diversity can drive deeper insights into the genetic architecture of complex traits.

Citations
58
FWCI
7.23
Field percentile
top 2%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.