A Genetic Association Test Accounting for Skewed X-Inactivation With Application to Biotherapy Immunogenicity in Patients With Autoimmune Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being assayed on commercialized DNA chips, the X chromosome is commonly excluded from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). One of the reasons is the complexity to analyze the data taking into account the X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) process in women and in particular the XCI process with a potentially skewed pattern. This is the case when investigating the role of X-linked genetic variants in the occurrence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) in patients with autoimmune diseases treated by biotherapies. In this context, we propose a novel test statistic for selecting loci of interest harbored by the X chromosome that are associated with time-to-event data taking into account skewed X-inactivation (XCI-S). The proposed statistic relies on a semi-parametric additive hazard model and is straightforward to implement. Results from the simulation study show that the test provides higher power gains than the score tests from the Cox model (under XCI process or its escape) and the Xu et al.'s XCI-S likelihood ratio test. We applied the test to the data from the real-world observational multicohort study set-up by the IMI-funded ABIRISK consortium for identifying X chromosome susceptibility loci for drug immunogenicity in patients with autoimmune diseases treated by biotherapies. The test allowed us to select two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with high linkage disequilibrium (rs5991366 and rs5991394) located in the cytoband Xp22.2 that would have been overlooked by the Cox score tests and the Xu et al.'s XCI-S likelihood ratio test. Both SNPs showed a similar protective effect for drug immunogenicity without any occurrence of ADA positivity for the homozygous females and hemizygous males for the alternative allele. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between X chromosome loci and the occurrence of anti-drug antibodies. We think that more X-Chromosome GWAS should be performed and that the test is well-suited for identifying X-Chromosome SNPs, while taking into account all patterns of the skewed X-Chromosome inactivation process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".