The application of polygenic risk scores (PRS) has become routine across genetic research. Among a range of applications, PRS are exploited to assess shared aetiology between phenotypes, to evaluate the predictive power of genetic data for use in clinical settings, and as part of experimental studies in which, for example, experiments are performed on individuals, or their biological samples (eg. tissues, cells), at the tails of the PRS distribution and contrasted. As GWAS sample sizes increase and PRS become more powerful, they are set to play a key role in personalised medicine. However, despite the growing application and importance of PRS, there are limited guidelines for performing PRS analyses, which can lead to inconsistency between studies and misinterpretation of results. Here we provide detailed guidelines for performing polygenic risk score analyses relevant to different methods for their calculation, outlining standard quality control steps and offering recommendations for bestpractice. We also discuss different methods for the calculation of PRS, common misconceptions regarding the interpretation of results and future challenges.Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a large number of genetic variants, typically single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), associated with a wide range of complex traits [1-3]. However, the majority of these variants have a small effect and typically correspond to a small fraction of truly associated variants, meaning that they have limited predictive power [4][5][6]. Using a linear mixed model in the Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis software (GCTA) [7], Yang et al (2010) demonstrated that much of the heritability of height can be explained by evaluating the effects of all SNPs simultaneously [6]. Subsequently, statistical techniques such as LD score regression (LDSC) [8,9] and the polygenic risk score (PRS) method [4,10] have also aggregated the effects of variants across the genome to estimate heritability, to infer genetic overlap between traits and to predict phenotypes based on genetic profile or that of other phenotypes [4,5,[8][9][10].While GCTA, LDSC and PRS can all be exploited to infer heritability and shared aetiology among complex traits, PRS is the only approach that provides an estimate of genetic propensity to a trait at the individual-level. In the standard approach [4,[11][12][13], polygenic risk scores are calculated by computing the sum of risk alleles corresponding to a phenotype of .

Polygenic scores (PGS) summarize the genetic contribution of a person's genotype to a disease or phenotype. They can be used to group participants into different risk categories for diseases, and are also used as covariates in epidemiological analyses. A number of possible ways of calculating PGS have been proposed, and recently there is much interest in methods that incorporate information available in published summary statistics. As there is no inherent information on linkage disequilibrium (LD) in summary statistics, a pertinent question is how we can use LD information available elsewhere to supplement such analyses. To answer this question, we propose a method for constructing PGS using summary statistics and a reference panel in a penalized regression framework, which we call lassosum. We also propose a general method for choosing the value of the tuning parameter in the absence of validation data. In our simulations, we showed that pseudovalidation often resulted in prediction accuracy that is comparable to using a dataset with validation phenotype and was clearly superior to the conservative option of setting the tuning parameter of lassosum to its lowest value. We also showed that lassosum achieved better prediction accuracy than simple clumping and P-value thresholding in almost all scenarios. It was also substantially faster and more accurate than the recently proposed LDpred.

Aggressive behaviour and victimization are common among severely mentally ill people requiring hospitalisation in the inner city. Rates of violent crime are higher than in the general population.

Men and women with severe mental illness who have a history of CD by mid-adolescence are at increased risk for aggressive behaviour and violent crime. These patients are easily identifiable and may benefit from learning-based treatments aimed at reducing antisocial behaviour. Longitudinal, prospective investigations are needed to understand why CD is more common among people with than without schizophrenia.