The emerging field of polygenic risk scores and perspective for use in clinical care. (3rd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yanes, Tatiane; McInerney-Leo, Aideen M; Law, Matthew H; Cummings, Shelly
• Is Part Of: Human molecular genetics. Volume 29:Number R2(2020)
• Page Start: R165
• Page End: R176
• Publication Date: 2020-07-03
• Subjects: Human molecular genetics -- Periodicals; Human chromosome abnormalities -- Periodicals; 572.8
• DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddaa136
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0964-6906

Abstract

Abstract: Genetic testing is used widely for diagnostic, carrier and predictive testing in monogenic diseases. Until recently, there were no genetic testing options available for multifactorial complex diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been invaluable in identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with increased or decreased risk for hundreds of complex disorders. For a given disease, SNPs can be combined to generate a cumulative estimation of risk known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). After years of research, PRSs are increasingly used in clinical settings. In this article, we will review the literature on how both genome-wide and restricted PRSs are developed and the relative merit of each. The validation and evaluation of PRSs will also be discussed, including the recognition that PRS validity is intrinsically linked to the methodological and analytical approach of the foundation GWAS together with the ethnic characteristics of that cohort. Specifically, population differences may affect imputation accuracy, risk magnitude and direction. Even as PRSs are being introduced into clinical practice, there is a push to combine them with clinical and demographic risk factors to develop a holistic disease risk. The existing evidence regarding the clinical utility of PRSs is considered across four different domains: informing population screening programs, guiding therapeutic interventions, refining risk for families at high risk, and facilitating diagnosis and predicting prognostic outcomes. The evidence for clinical utility in relation to five well-studied disorders is summarized. The potential ethical, legal and social implications are also highlighted.