PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Penetrance estimation of SORL1 loss-of-function variants using a family-based strategy adjusted on APOE genotypes suggest a non-monogenic inheritance

Schramm, Catherine, Charbonnier, Camille, Zaréa, Aline, Lacour, Morgane, Wallon, David, CNRMAJ collaborators, Boland, Anne, Deleuze, Jean-François, Olaso, Robert, Alarcon, Flora, Campion, Dominique, Nuel, Grégory, Nicolas, Gaël·2021

Abstract

For complex disorders, estimating the age-related penetrance associated with rare variants of strong effect is essential before a putative use for genetic counseling or disease prevention. However, rarity and co-occurrence with other risk factors make such estimations difficult. In the context of Alzheimer disease, we present a survival model to estimate the penetrance of SORL1 rare (allele frequency< 1%) Loss-of-Function variants (LoF) while accounting for APOE -ε4, the main risk factor (allele frequency∼ 14% in Caucasians). We developed an efficient strategy to compute penetrance estimates accounting for both common and rare genetic variants based on available penetrance curves associated with common risk factors and using incomplete pedigree data to quantify the additional risk conferred by rare variants. Our model combines: (i) a baseline for non-carriers of SORL1 LoF variants, stratified by APOE genotypes derived from the Rotterdam study and (ii) an age-dependent proportional hazard effect for SORL1 LoF variants estimated from pedigrees with a proband carrying such a variant. We embed this model into an Expectation-Maximisation algorithm to accommodate for missing genotypes. Confidence intervals were computed by bootstraps. To correct for ascertainment bias, proband phenotypes were omitted. We obtained penetrance curves associated with SORL1 LoF variants at the digenic level. By age 70, we estimate a 100% penetrance of SORL1 LoF variants only among APOE -ε4ε4 carriers, while penetrance is 56%[40% − 72%] among ε4 heterozygous carriers and 37%[26% − 51%] among ε4 non-carriers. We conclude that rare SORL1 LoF variants should not be used for genetic counseling regardless of the APOE status.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2021.06.30.450554

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 2013, Evaluating rare variants in complex disorders using next-generation sequencing, Current psychiatry reports, 15, 349, 10.1007/s11920-013-0349-4 · DOI
  2. 2016, From common to rare variants: the genetic component of Alzheimer disease, Human heredity, 81, 129, 10.1159/000452256 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/mp.2011.52 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/mp.2012.15 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1038/mp.2015.121 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2019, SORL1 genetic variants and Alzheimer disease risk: a literature review and meta-analysis of sequencing data, Acta neuropathologica, 138, 173, 10.1007/s00401-019-01991-4 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Holstege, H. , Hulsman, M. , Charbonnier, C. , Grenier-Boley, B. , Quenez, O. , Grozeva, D. , van Rooij, J. G. , Sims, R. , Ahmad, S. , Amin, N. , et al. (2020). Exome sequencing identifies novel AD-associated genes. medRxiv. · DOI
  8. 2001, The lifetime risks of breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers, 10, 467
  9. 2004, Estimating penetrance from family data using a retrospective likelihood when ascertainment depends on genotype and age of onset, Genetic Epidemiology: The Official Publication of the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, 27, 109, 10.1002/gepi.20007 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/gepi.1370120103 · DOI
  11. 10.1136/jmg.40.11.e120 · DOI
  12. 1912, Methode und fehlerquellen der untersuchung auf mendelsche zahlen beim menschen, Arch Rass Ges Biol, 9, 165
  13. 2009, PEL: an unbiased method for estimating age-dependent genetic disease risk from pedigree data unselected for family history, Genetic Epidemiology: The Official Publication of the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, 33, 379, 10.1002/gepi.20390 · DOI
  14. 10.1159/000046664 · DOI
  15. 2018, Non-parametric estimation of survival in age-dependent genetic disease and application to the transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis, PloS one, 13, e0203860, 10.1371/journal.pone.0203860 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. 2018, The effect of APOE and other common genetic variants on the onset of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia: a community-based cohort study, The Lancet Neurology, 17, 434, 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30053-X · DOI
  18. 2016, Screening of dementia genes by whole-exome sequencing in early-onset Alzheimer disease: input and lessons, European Journal of Human Genetics, 24, 710, 10.1038/ejhg.2015.173 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1038/s41586-020-2308-7 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 2018, Biallelic loss of function of SORL1 in an early onset Alzheimer’s disease patient, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 62, 821, 10.3233/JAD-170981 · DOI
  21. 2010, A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations, Nature methods, 7, 248, 10.1038/nmeth0410-248 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 2014, Mutationtaster2: mutation prediction for the deep-sequencing age, Nature methods, 11, 361, 10.1038/nmeth.2890 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1101/gr.176601 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007747 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 2017, Clinical characterization of an APP mutation (V717I) in five Han Chinese families with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, Journal of the neurological sciences, 372, 379, 10.1016/j.jns.2016.10.039 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/mp.2015.100 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.2307/2290793 · DOI
  28. 2016, L0 regularisation for the estimation of piecewise constant hazard rates in survival analysis, arXiv preprint
  29. 1972, Regression models and life-tables, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 34, 187, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · DOI · Paper page
  30. 2020, Review of current advances in survival analysis and frailty models, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 12, e1504, 10.1002/wics.1504 · DOI
  31. 2002, Mortality differences by APOE genotype estimated from demographic synthesis, Genetic Epidemiology: The Official Publication of the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, 22, 146, 10.1002/gepi.0164 · DOI
  32. 10.2307/2670170 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schramm, C., Charbonnier, C., Zaréa, A., Lacour, M., Wallon, D., collaborators, C., Boland, A., Deleuze, J.-F., Olaso, R., Alarcon, F., Campion, D., Nuel, G., & Nicolas, G.
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-07-01
Cited by
1
References
6
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review