Estimation of non-additive genetic variance in human complex traits from a large sample of unrelated individuals

Abstract

Non-additive genetic variance for complex traits is traditionally estimated from data on relatives. It is notoriously difficult to estimate without bias in non-laboratory species, including humans, because of possible confounding with environmental covariance among relatives. In principle, non-additive variance attributable to common DNA variants can be estimated from a random sample of unrelated individuals with genome-wide SNP data. Here, we jointly estimate the proportion of variance explained by additive , dominance and additive-by-additive genetic variance in a single analysis model. We first show by simulations that our model leads to unbiased estimates and provide new theory to predict standard errors estimated using either least squares or maximum likelihood. We then apply the model to 70 complex traits using 254,679 unrelated individuals from the UK Biobank and 1.1M genotyped and imputed SNPs. We found strong evidence for additive variance (average across traits . In contrast, the average estimate of across traits was 0.001, implying negligible dominance variance at causal variants tagged by common SNPs. The average epistatic variance across the traits was 0.058, not significantly different from zero because of the large sampling variance. Our results provide new evidence that genetic variance for complex traits is predominantly additive, and that sample sizes of many millions of unrelated individuals are needed to estimate epistatic variance with sufficient precision.

Large uncertainty in individual PRS estimation impacts PRS-based risk stratification

“…Fourth, although we have shown that our approach is robust to certain types of model misspecification (e.g., effect sizes drawn from mixture of normal distributions, imperfect tagging of causal effects), we do not exclude the possibility of nonlinear interaction effects such as GxE, GxG and dominance effects [55][56][57][58] . We also assume that phenotypes are normally distributed or can be properly quantile normalized.…”

Admixed Populations Improve Power for Variant Discovery and Portability in Genome-wide Association Studies

“…However, the increase in power is still expected to be substantial from additive components that are usually considered major in a genetic architecture, with effect sizes highly similar across populations (Wojcik et al, 2019). Additionally, currently the contribution from epistasis or G × E components to most trait variability is estimated to be relatively small (Wang et al, 2019; Dahl et al, 2020; Hivert et al, 2020). For variants with heterogeneous effect sizes per ancestry, other local ancestry-aware regression methods could potentially improve the power of detection in admixed populations (Atkinson et al, 2021).…”

Less Is More—Ways to Move Forward for Improved Breast Cancer Risk Stratification

“…Behravan and colleagues also reported that, by allowing nonparametric interactions between genetic and demographic factors, the AI models improved the mean average precision in breast cancer prediction from 0.74 to 0.78, comparing with the ones using SNPs alone (22). Despite promising data regarding AI-based methods, caution is warranted as the contribution of epistatic effects over and beyond additive effects may be small for complex traits, like breast cancer (23).…”