Cargando…

Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better

As the size of genome-wide association studies increase, the number of associated trait loci identified inevitably increase. One welcomes this if it allows the better delineation of the pathways to disease and increases the accuracy of genetic prediction of disease risk through polygenic risk score...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Escott-Price, Valentina, Hardy, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9155614/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35663382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac125
_version_ 1784718275918168064
author Escott-Price, Valentina
Hardy, John
author_facet Escott-Price, Valentina
Hardy, John
author_sort Escott-Price, Valentina
collection PubMed
description As the size of genome-wide association studies increase, the number of associated trait loci identified inevitably increase. One welcomes this if it allows the better delineation of the pathways to disease and increases the accuracy of genetic prediction of disease risk through polygenic risk score analysis. However, there are several problems in the continuing increase in the genome-wide analysis of ‘Alzheimer’s disease’. In this review, we have systematically assessed the history of Alzheimer’s disease genome-wide association studies, including their sample sizes, age and selection/assessment criteria of cases and controls and heritability explained by these disease genome-wide association studies. We observe that nearly all earlier disease genome-wide association studies are now part of all current disease genome-wide association studies. In addition, the latest disease genome-wide association studies include (i) only a small fraction (∼10%) of clinically screened controls, substituting for them population-based samples which are systematically younger than cases, and (ii) around 50% of Alzheimer’s disease cases are in fact ‘proxy dementia cases’. As a consequence, the more genes the field finds, the less the heritability they explain. We highlight potential caveats this situation creates and discuss some of the consequences occurring when translating the newest Alzheimer’s disease genome-wide association study results into basic research and/or clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9155614
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91556142022-06-04 Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better Escott-Price, Valentina Hardy, John Brain Commun Review Article As the size of genome-wide association studies increase, the number of associated trait loci identified inevitably increase. One welcomes this if it allows the better delineation of the pathways to disease and increases the accuracy of genetic prediction of disease risk through polygenic risk score analysis. However, there are several problems in the continuing increase in the genome-wide analysis of ‘Alzheimer’s disease’. In this review, we have systematically assessed the history of Alzheimer’s disease genome-wide association studies, including their sample sizes, age and selection/assessment criteria of cases and controls and heritability explained by these disease genome-wide association studies. We observe that nearly all earlier disease genome-wide association studies are now part of all current disease genome-wide association studies. In addition, the latest disease genome-wide association studies include (i) only a small fraction (∼10%) of clinically screened controls, substituting for them population-based samples which are systematically younger than cases, and (ii) around 50% of Alzheimer’s disease cases are in fact ‘proxy dementia cases’. As a consequence, the more genes the field finds, the less the heritability they explain. We highlight potential caveats this situation creates and discuss some of the consequences occurring when translating the newest Alzheimer’s disease genome-wide association study results into basic research and/or clinical practice. Oxford University Press 2022-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9155614/ /pubmed/35663382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac125 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Escott-Price, Valentina
Hardy, John
Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
title Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
title_full Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
title_fullStr Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
title_full_unstemmed Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
title_short Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
title_sort genome-wide association studies for alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9155614/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35663382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac125
work_keys_str_mv AT escottpricevalentina genomewideassociationstudiesforalzheimersdiseasebiggerisnotalwaysbetter
AT hardyjohn genomewideassociationstudiesforalzheimersdiseasebiggerisnotalwaysbetter