A polygenic-score-based approach for identification of gene-drug interactions stratifying breast cancer risk

Genotype × environment interactions in gene regulation and complex traits

Genotype × environment interactions (GxE) have long been recognized as a key mechanism underlying human phenotypic variation. Technological developments over the past 15 years have dramatically expanded our appreciation of the role of GxE in both gene regulation and complex traits. The richness and complexity of these datasets also required parallel efforts to develop robust and sensitive statistical and computational approaches. Although our understanding of the genetic architecture of molecular and complex traits has been maturing, a large proportion of complex trait heritability remains unexplained. Furthermore, there are increasing efforts to characterize the effect of environmental exposure on human health. We therefore review GxE in human gene regulation and complex traits, advocating for a comprehensive approach that jointly considers genetic and environmental factors in human health and disease.

Applying polygenic risk score methods to pharmacogenomics GWAS: challenges and opportunities

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as promising tools for the prediction of human diseases and complex traits in disease genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Applying PRSs to pharmacogenomics (PGx) studies has begun to show great potential for improving patient stratification and drug response prediction. However, there are unique challenges that arise when applying PRSs to PGx GWAS beyond those typically encountered in disease GWAS (e.g. Eurocentric or trans-ethnic bias). These challenges include: (i) the lack of knowledge about whether PGx or disease GWAS/variants should be used in the base cohort (BC); (ii) the small sample sizes in PGx GWAS with corresponding low power and (iii) the more complex PRS statistical modeling required for handling both prognostic and predictive effects simultaneously. To gain insights in this landscape about the general trends, challenges and possible solutions, we first conduct a systematic review of both PRS applications and PRS method development in PGx GWAS. To further address the challenges, we propose (i) a novel PRS application strategy by leveraging both PGx and disease GWAS summary statistics in the BC for PRS construction and (ii) a new Bayesian method (PRS-PGx-Bayesx) to reduce Eurocentric or cross-population PRS prediction bias. Extensive simulations are conducted to demonstrate their advantages over existing PRS methods applied in PGx GWAS. Our systematic review and methodology research work not only highlights current gaps and key considerations while applying PRS methods to PGx GWAS, but also provides possible solutions for better PGx PRS applications and future research.

Combining machine learning with Cox models to identify predictors for incident post-menopausal breast cancer in the UK Biobank

We aimed to identify potential novel predictors for breast cancer among post-menopausal women, with pre-specified interest in the role of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for risk prediction. We utilised an analysis pipeline where machine learning was used for feature selection, prior to risk prediction by classical statistical models. An "extreme gradient boosting" (XGBoost) machine with Shapley feature-importance measures were used for feature selection among [Formula: see text] 1.7 k features in 104,313 post-menopausal women from the UK Biobank. We constructed and compared the "augmented" Cox model (incorporating the two PRS, known and novel predictors) with a "baseline" Cox model (incorporating the two PRS and known predictors) for risk prediction. Both of the two PRS were significant in the augmented Cox model ([Formula: see text]). XGBoost identified 10 novel features, among which five showed significant associations with post-menopausal breast cancer: plasma urea (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, [Formula: see text]), plasma phosphate (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.88, [Formula: see text]), basal metabolic rate (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.24, [Formula: see text]), red blood cell count (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.08-1.35, [Formula: see text]), and creatinine in urine (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, [Formula: see text]). Risk discrimination was maintained in the augmented Cox model, yielding C-index 0.673 vs 0.667 (baseline Cox model) with the training data and 0.665 vs 0.664 with the test data. We identified blood/urine biomarkers as potential novel predictors for post-menopausal breast cancer. Our findings provide new insights to breast cancer risk. Future research should validate novel predictors, investigate using multiple PRS and more precise anthropometry measures for better breast cancer risk prediction.