MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-analysis and Multivariate GWAS Analyses in 77,850 Individuals of African Ancestry Identify Novel Variants Associated with Blood Pressure Traits

2023· preprint· en· W4313476675 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda Udosen, Opeyemi Soremekun, Abram Bunya Kamiza, Tafadzwa Machipisa, Cheickna Cissé, Olaposi Idowu Omotuyi, Mahmoud E. S. Soliman, Mamadou Wélé, Oyekanmi Nash, Tinashe Chikowore, Segun Fatumo

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilInyuvesi Yakwazulu-NataliWellcome TrustLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
KeywordsGenome-wide association studySingle-nucleotide polymorphismBiologyGenetic associationGeneticsBiobankImputation (statistics)Blood pressureGeneEndocrinologyMissing dataGenotypeStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: High blood pressure (BP) has been implicated as a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases in several global populations, including in individuals of African ancestry. Despite the elevated burden of high BP-induced cardiovascular diseases in Africa and other global populations with African ancestry, limited genetic studies have been carried out to explore the genetic machinery driving this phenomenon. Methods: We performed univariate and multivariate analyses using Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and summary statistics data of 77,850 individuals of African ancestry for systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) traits. The six independent cohorts used included individuals derived from the African Partnership for Chronic Disease Research (APCDR), the UK Biobank, and the Million Veteran Program (MVP). Subsequently, we annotated, prioritized, visualized, and interpreted our meta-analyses results using FUMA, to gain further insight into the molecular mechanism(s) that contribute to the genetics of BP traits. Finally, loci attaining genome-wide significance, GWS (p<5x10-8) were also followed up with Bayesian fine-mapping to identify potential causal variants. Results: Our meta-analyses altogether identified 350 GWAS SNPs for SBP (166 SNPs) and DBP (184 SNPs, including two novel loci) whilst our multivariate GWAS method identified 166 SNPs (including three novel loci). Interestingly, in FUMA there was significant tissue enrichment of up-regulated differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the sigmoid and transverse colon for SBP, as well as 10 significant gene sets from MAGMA gene set analyses, However, for DBP, no significant DEGs nor gene sets in MAGMA were found; instead, in DBP for gene property analysis for tissue specificity nine candidates were found to be significant and all nine were in different brain regions. Finally, Bayesian fine-mapping revealed that only 11 variants from the lead SNPs had >50% posterior probability (PP) of being causal and they included novel variant rs562545 (MOBP, PP = 77%) and 10 other previously published variants. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the importance of performing GWAS in large sample sizes of global populations of African ancestry, including continental Africans; which yield novel insights, from novel loci to novel pathways/tissue expression candidates. Large-scale genomic datasets are required to enhance further discovery and fine-mapping of high-risk loci/variants in highly susceptible groups for cardiovascular disease and other related traits. Our study highlights the need for diversity in genetic research and the importance of expanding large GWASs to include ancestrally diverse populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.010
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.342
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.078 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207