The impact of adjusting for baseline in pharmacogenomic genome-wide association studies of quantitative change

Abstract

In pharmacogenomic studies of quantitative change, any association between genetic variants and the pretreatment (baseline) measurement can bias the estimate of effect between those variants and drug response. A putative solution is to adjust for baseline. We conducted a series of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) response to statin therapy in 34,874 participants of the Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging (GERA) cohort as a case study to investigate the impact of baseline adjustment on results generated from pharmacogenomic studies of quantitative change. Across phenotypes of statin-induced LDL-C change, baseline adjustment identified variants from six loci meeting genomewide significance (SORT/CELSR2/PSRC1, LPA, SLCO1B1, APOE, APOB, and SMARCA4/LDLR). In contrast, baseline-unadjusted analyses yielded variants from three loci meeting the criteria for genome-wide significance (LPA, APOE, and SLCO1B1). A genome-wide heterogeneity test of baseline versus statin on-treatment LDL-C levels was performed as the definitive test for the true effect of genetic variants on statin-induced LDL-C change. These findings were generally consistent with the models not adjusting for baseline signifying that genome-wide significant hits generated only from baseline-adjusted analyses (SORT/CELSR2/PSRC1, APOB, SMARCA4/LDLR) were likely biased. We then comprehensively reviewed published GWASs of drug-induced quantitative change and discovered that more than half (59%) inappropriately adjusted for baseline. Altogether, we demonstrate that (1) baseline adjustment introduces bias in pharmacogenomic studies of quantitative change and (2) this erroneous methodology is highly prevalent. We conclude that it is critical to avoid this common statistical approach in future pharmacogenomic studies of quantitative change.

Cancer Stem Cells: Significance in Origin, Pathogenesis and Treatment of Glioblastoma

“…In addition, primary proneural GBM can recur as mesenchymal GBM. The subtype switch reflects general feature of tumors and can be explained either by the occurrence of a molecular switch in proneural GSCs, leading to transformation into a mesenchymal profile, or by better survival of mesenchymal GSCs that were present in the primary proneural GBM [ 24 , 25 ].…”

“…While ligands for the Notch pathway, e.g., Delta-like ligand 4 (DLL4) and Jagged1 (JAG1), are expressed on the endothelium, Notch-1 and Notch-2 themselves are expressed on GSCs [ 25 ]. Notch activation by these ligands ( Figure 2 ) leads to activation of the target genes Hes1 and Hey1 .…”

“…Notch activation by these ligands ( Figure 2 ) leads to activation of the target genes Hes1 and Hey1 . This represents one of the mechanisms promoting GSCs [ 25 ]. It has been confirmed by Notch pathway blockade, which was found to lead to reduced expression of stemness markers as well as inhibition of neurosphere formation in vitro [ 37 , 38 ].…”

Pharmacogenomics, How to Deal with Different Types of Variants in Next Generation Sequencing Data in the Personalized Medicine Area

“…Routine silico analysis is considered for filtration of NGS derived pharmacovariants data at the first step (including the quality assessments, segregation studies, zygosity mapping, and allele phasing, etc.). Next, the selected variants go for pathogenicity and functional annotation analysis through the utilization of prediction algorithms in both common (i.e., SIFT , PolyPhen2 , MutationTaster ) and PGx dedicated tools (i.e., Stargazer , Aldy , Astrolabe ) [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. As the final stage, computational and in-vitro confirmation studies can aid in the identification of prediction’s sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy level.…”

Human whole genome sequencing in South Africa

“…Human genetic studies in African countries hold much promise, but are more challenging to do than elsewhere, resulting in the underrepresentation of populations from this continent 6 , 7 even though African researchers have the proven capacity to conduct large-scale human genetic analyses. For example, the Southern African Human Genome Programme (SAHGP) investigated the whole genomes of 24 individuals 8 , while the H3ABionet consortium has a node in South Africa and developed African bioinformatics infrastructure 9 .…”