Abstract
The short-term changes in heart rate (HR) during and after exercise are important physiologic traits mediated via the autonomic nervous system. Variations in these traits are associated with mortality from cardiovascular causes. We conducted a systematic review of genome-wide association studies for these traits (with >10,000 participants) with the aim of comparing Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) from different studies. Additionally, we applied the STrengthening of Reporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) statement for assessing the completeness of reporting of evidence. Our systematic search yielded two studies (Verweij et al. and Ramirez et al.) that met our inclusion criteria. Both were conducted on the UK Biobank. Both defined their exercise traits as the difference between resting HR and the maximum HR during exercise. Their recovery traits were defined differently. Verweij et al. defined 5 recovery traits as the differences between the peak HR during exercise and the HRs at 10-50 sec post exercise cessation. Ramirez et al. defined their recovery trait as the difference between peak HR during exercise and the minimum HR during the minute post exercise cessation. While Ramirez et al. divided their sample into discovery and replication subsets, Verweij et al. analyzed the whole sample together. In terms of results, there were several common SNPs identified between studies and traits. There was evidence for the phenomenon of winner’s curse operating for a SNP from the Ramirez study’s HR recovery analysis. Many of the SNPs were mutually exclusive between the studies. However, there was a good agreement of PRS from the studies. The differences in the results could be attributed to the different exclusion criteria, analytic approaches, and definitions of traits used. Both studies had an under-representation of individuals of non-European ancestry compared to those of European ancestry. Further studies with proportionate representation of individuals of all ancestries would help address this gap.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The review was unfunded. There was no role for funders in the review process.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The present manuscript is a review and is exempt.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets were derived from sources in the public domain and are available from the following URLs: LDLINK: https://ldlink.nci.nih.gov; LDlink 4.1.0 Release (04/29/2020), accessed date: 2020 May 20th 1000 Genomes: https://www.internationalgenome.org/data; Accessed 2020, June 3rd UK Biobank: http://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/showcase/field.cgi?id=6020 ; Accessed 2020 August 6 th
