Cited by 199Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

An atlas of polygenic risk score associations to highlight putative causal relationships across the human phenome

Open access
Richardson, Tom G, Harrison, Sean, Hemani, Gibran, Davey Smith, George·2019·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The age of large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has provided us with an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate the genetic liability of complex disease using polygenic risk scores (PRS). In this study, we have analysed 162 PRS (p<5×10−05) derived from GWAS and 551 heritable traits from the UK Biobank study (N = 334,398). Findings can be investigated using a web application (http:‌//‌mrcieu.‌mrsoftware.org/‌PRS‌_atlas/), which we envisage will help uncover both known and novel mechanisms which contribute towards disease susceptibility. To demonstrate this, we have investigated the results from a phenome-wide evaluation of schizophrenia genetic liability. Amongst findings were inverse associations with measures of cognitive function which extensive follow-up analyses using Mendelian randomization (MR) provided evidence of a causal relationship. We have also investigated the effect of multiple risk factors on disease using mediation and multivariable MR frameworks. Our atlas provides a resource for future endeavours seeking to unravel the causal determinants of complex disease.

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 · 10.7554/elife.43657

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Associations between patient-level PGSs and outcomes are more robust, potentially capturing causal associations.

    “we and others argue that associations between patient-level PGSs and outcomes are more robust, potentially capturing causal associations.95”

    From Cystatin C is glucocorticoid responsive, directs recruitment of Trem2+ macrophages, and predicts failure of cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [95]

    The Introduction says PRS associations may highlight putative causal relationships and can have higher statistical power than the MR approach it compared. It does not establish that those associations are more robust; its simulations found substantial false-positive rates from horizontal pleiotropy, and it says robust follow-up evaluation is necessary. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Because inherited sequence variation is a prominent cause of phenotypic variation (but the reverse is not true), risk variants identified by GWAS have value as genetic instruments for mapping causal relationships between traits and inferring contributions of biomarkers and environmental exposures to disease.

    “In addition, as inherited sequence variation is a prominent cause of phenotypic variation (but the reverse is not true), risk variants identified by GWAS have value as genetic instruments, mapping causal relationships between traits and inferring contributions made by circulating biomarkers and environmental exposures to disease development66.”

    From A brief history of human disease genetics (2020) · cites this paper as [66]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richardson, T. G., Harrison, S., Hemani, G., & Davey Smith, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Corresponding author
Richardson, Tom G
Venue
eLife
Published
2019-03-05
Volume
8
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899836172
Cited by
198
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 16
FWCI
20.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1)
  • Wellcome Trust (208806/Z/17/Z)
  • Health Data Research UK (MR/S003886/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
polygenic risk score, phenome-wide association study, schizophrenia, genetic susceptibility, cognitive function, causal relationship, Mendelian randomization, mediation analysis, multivariable Mendelian randomization, complex disease susceptibility, heritable traits, UK Biobank, web application
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Humans, Schizophrenia, Risk Assessment, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Multifactorial Inheritance, Databases, Genetic, Genome-Wide Association Study

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