SummaryBiobanks are being established across the world to understand the genetic, environmental, and epidemiological basis of human diseases with the goal of better prevention and treatments. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been very successful at mapping genomic loci for a wide range of human diseases and traits, but in general, lack appropriate representation of diverse ancestries - with most biobanks and preceding GWAS studies composed of individuals of European ancestries. Here, we introduce the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative (GBMI) -- a collaborative network of 19 biobanks from 4 continents representing more than 2.1 million consented individuals with genetic data linked to electronic health records. GBMI meta-analyzes summary statistics from GWAS generated using harmonized genotypes and phenotypes from member biobanks. GBMI brings together results from GWAS analysis across 6 main ancestry groups: approximately 33,000 of African ancestry either from Africa or from admixed-ancestry diaspora (AFR), 18,000 admixed American (AMR), 31,000 Central and South Asian (CSA), 341,000 East Asian (EAS), 1.4 million European (EUR), and 1,600 Middle Eastern (MID) individuals. In this flagship project, we generated GWASs from across 14 exemplar diseases and endpoints, including both common and less prevalent diseases that were previously understudied. Using the genetic association results, we validate that GWASs conducted in biobanks worldwide can be successfully integrated despite heterogeneity in case definitions, recruitment strategies, and baseline characteristics between biobanks. We demonstrate the value of this collaborative effort to improve GWAS power for diseases, increase representation, benefit understudied diseases, and improve risk prediction while also enabling the nomination of disease genes and drug candidates by incorporating gene and protein expression data and providing insight into the underlying biology of the studied traits.
Objectives: To investigate whether there is a causal effect of cardiometabolic traits on risk of sepsis and severe covid-19. Design: Mendelian randomisation analysis. Setting: UK Biobank and HUNT study population-based cohorts for risk of sepsis, and genome-wide association study summary data for risk of severe covid-19 with respiratory failure. Participants: 12,455 sepsis cases (519,885 controls) and 1,610 severe covid-19 with respiratory failure cases (2,205 controls). Exposure: Genetic variants that proxy body mass index (BMI), lipid traits, systolic blood pressure, lifetime smoking score, and type 2 diabetes liability - derived from studies considering between 188,577 to 898,130 participants. Main outcome measures: Risk of sepsis and severe covid-19 with respiratory failure. Results: Higher genetically proxied BMI and lifetime smoking score were associated with increased risk of sepsis in both UK Biobank (BMI: odds ratio 1.38 per standard deviation increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.51; smoking: odds ratio 2.81 per standard deviation increase, 95% CI 2.09-3.79) and HUNT (BMI: 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69; smoking: 1.93, 95% CI 1.02-3.64). Higher genetically proxied BMI and lifetime smoking score were also associated with increased risk of severe covid-19, although with wider confidence intervals (BMI: 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.57; smoking: 3.94, 95% CI 1.13 to 13.75). There was limited evidence to support associations of genetically proxied lipid traits, systolic blood pressure or type 2 diabetes liability with risk of sepsis or severe covid-19. Similar findings were generally obtained when using Mendelian randomization methods that are more robust to the inclusion of pleiotropic variants, although the precision of estimates was reduced. Conclusions: Our findings support a causal effect of elevated BMI and smoking on risk of sepsis and severe covid-19. Clinical and public health interventions targeting obesity and smoking are likely to reduce sepsis and covid-19 related morbidity, along with the plethora of other health-related outcomes that these traits adversely affect.
Background This study was to systematically test whether previously reported risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD) are causally related to CKD in European and East Asian ancestries using Mendelian randomization. Methods A total of 45 risk factors with genetic data in European ancestry and 17 risk factors in East Asian participants were identified as exposures from PubMed. We defined the CKD by clinical diagnosis or by estimated glomerular filtration rate of <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Ultimately, 51 672 CKD cases and 958 102 controls of European ancestry from CKDGen, UK Biobank and HUNT, and 13 093 CKD cases and 238 118 controls of East Asian ancestry from Biobank Japan, China Kadoorie Biobank and Japan-Kidney-Biobank/ToMMo were included. Results Eight risk factors showed reliable evidence of causal effects on CKD in Europeans, including genetically predicted body mass index (BMI), hypertension, systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I, lipoprotein(a), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and nephrolithiasis. In East Asians, BMI, T2D and nephrolithiasis showed evidence of causality on CKD. In two independent replication analyses, we observed that increased hypertension risk showed reliable evidence of a causal effect on increasing CKD risk in Europeans but in contrast showed a null effect in East Asians. Although liability to T2D showed consistent effects on CKD, the effects of glycaemic phenotypes on CKD were weak. Non-linear Mendelian randomization indicated a threshold relationship between genetically predicted BMI and CKD, with increased risk at BMI of >25 kg/m2. Conclusions Eight cardiometabolic risk factors showed causal effects on CKD in Europeans and three of them showed causality in East Asians, providing insights into the design of future interventions to reduce the burden of CKD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.