Hypothesis-free detection of gene-interaction effects on biomarker concentration in UK Biobank using variance prioritisation

Matthew S. Lyon, Louise A. C. Millard, George Davey Smith, Tom R. Gaunt, Kate Tilling
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.05.21268406

Abstract

Blood biomarkers include disease intervention targets that may interact with genetic and environmental factors resulting in subgroups of individuals who respond differently to treatment. Such interactions may be observed in genetic effects on trait variance. Variance prioritisation is an approach to identify genetic loci with interaction effects by estimating their association with trait variance, even where the modifier is unknown or unmeasured. Here, we develop and evaluate a regression-based Brown-Forsythe test and variance effect estimate to detect such interactions. We provide scalable open-source software (varGWAS) for genome-wide association analysis of SNP-variance effects (https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS) and apply our software to 30 blood biomarkers in UK Biobank. We find 468 variance quantitative trait loci across 24 biomarkers and follow up findings to detect 82 gene-environment and six gene-gene interactions independent of strong scale or phantom effects. Our results replicate existing findings and identify novel epistatic effects of TREH rs12225548 x FUT2 rs281379 and TREH rs12225548 x ABO rs635634 on alkaline phosphatase and ZNF827 rs4835265 x NEDD4L rs4503880 on gamma glutamyltransferase. These data could be used to discover possible subgroup effects for a given biomarker during preclinical drug development.

Introduction

Blood biomarkers provide valuable information for diagnosis and prognosis of disease1, insight into biological mechanisms2, and a source of causal modifiable risk factors which may be intervened upon to create therapies1. For example, lipids, glucose, and urate have become successful therapeutic targets for cardiovascular disease3, type 2 diabetes4, and gout5, respectively, among others. However, as biomarkers are complex traits they are affected by genetic and environmental factors which may interact producing gene-gene (GxG, epistasis) or gene-environment (GxE) effects6. Intervening on biomarkers which have an interaction effect on disease outcome will produce subgroup effects with individual variation in response to treatment dependent on the modifier7. Identifying these interactions may contribute to stratified medicine which aims to provide optimum treatments and preventative advice for disease based on individual characteristics6.

Detecting interaction effects can be challenging. Statistical power to detect an interaction is lower than for main effects; for randomised control trials the sample size needed to detect an interaction with equal sized subgroups is around four times the size needed to detect the main effect of the same magnitude7,8. Low power is exacerbated by multiple testing correction that is essential to account for evaluating the large numbers of candidate modifiers. To reduce multiple testing, pairwise interaction analyses of SNPs with moderate main effects can be performed. However, this approach could miss subgroups with an effect in only one group or opposing effect directionality (known as qualitative interaction effects7) hence weaker overall effects, yet these offer the most potential for stratified medicine. An alternative approach to select SNPs for GxG/GxE testing is variance prioritisation9,10 which identifies differences in outcome variance across genotype levels (variance quantitative trait loci, vQTL). Although not conclusive evidence, this observation is consistent with a SNP-interaction effect11 and detection of vQTLs does not require the modifier to be measured11.

Variance QTLs can arise as a consequence of heterogeneous mean effects that could occur from changing environment, background genetics and temporal regulation11. Among the first reported vQTL effects in humans was rs7202116 (FTO locus), associated with a large change in variance (as well as mean) of body mass index (BMI)12. More recently, systematic testing of vQTL effects on 13 quantitative traits in UK Biobank and subsequent GxE testing identified 16 GxE effects modified by age, sex, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and smoking13. Variance QTLs have also been identified for gene expression14, DNA methylation15, Vitamin D16 and facial morphology17. To date, gene-interaction studies have mostly focused on testing a small number of candidate interactions, but hypothesis-free testing of vQTL effects on blood biomarkers could lead to the identification of unanticipated intervention targets with subgroup effects.

Existing studies of vQTLs have employed a range of methods13,18–20. Wang et al compared the power and type I error of four widely used variance tests and found the median variant of Levene’s test21 also known as the Brown-Forsythe test13,22 to be most robust. However, this test does not allow for inclusion of covariates or continuous genotype data (i.e., imputed allelic dose) and does not provide an effect estimate, all of which are limitations when applied in a GWAS. However, the Brown-Forsythe test can be reformulated using least-absolute deviation15,23 (LAD) regression using the same structure as the Glejser test24. Regression-based variance tests offer greater flexibility to overcome these limitations. Recent developments in LAD regression have vastly reduced the computational burden for large high-dimensional datasets25.

In this study we compare the utility of the original Brown-Forsythe test and our LAD regression-based reformulation of the Brown-Forsythe test (LAD-BF) to detect SNP-interaction effects under simulation and develop scalable open-source software (https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS) for performing variance GWAS using the latter. We apply our regression-based model to estimate SNP effects on the variance of 30 blood biomarkers in∼337K UK Biobank participants and follow up vQTLs with formal interaction tests to detect GxG and GxE interactions.

Material and methods

Original Brown-Forsythe test

The Brown-Forsythe22 test (median variant of Levene’s test21) refers to the original published non-parametric test and will be used throughout. We applied the Brown-Forsythe test to detect differences in trait variability across the three genotypic groups.

The test statistic W is F-distributed F(2, N −3) given by: Embedded Image

Where N is the total number of observations. Ni is the number of observations with the ith genotype group {0, 1, 2}. Xij is the absolute residual of the outcome for the jth observation in the ith genotype group from the median.Embedded Image is the mean of Xij for the ith genotype group and Embedded Image is the mean of Xij across genotype groups.

All analyses of the original Brown-Forsythe test used the omic-data-based complex trait analysis (OSCA) software package13,26 which additionally produces a variance effect estimate derived from the test P-value assuming linearity between the SNP and outcome variance27.

LAD-BF test

Our reformulated regression-based Brown-Forsythe test uses LAD regression of outcome Y on independent variable X to estimate the residuals adjusting for any covariates: Embedded Image

Where X is the genotype measured by continuous (expected value from genotype imputation) or ordinal (directly genotyped) variable and Û is the residual of this first-stage model.

A second-stage ordinary least squares (OLS) model regressed the absolute residuals | Û | of the first-stage model on the genotype values coded as dummy variables (genotype expected values were rounded to the nearest whole number resulting in some loss of precision) including any covariates given in the first-stage model: Embedded Image

The test P-value was estimated from an F-test comparing the second-stage residual sum of squares to an intercept-only model to test the null hypothesis of variability homogeneity across genotypes.

SNP effects on trait variance were calculated from second-stage regression coefficients which are estimates of mean-absolute deviation. This transformation assumes trait normality.

The var (Y|G == 1) was estimated using: Embedded Image

The var (Y|G == 2) was estimated using: Embedded Image

The standard error of the variance effect was estimated using the delta method28 and heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors for the second-stage model coefficients29.

LAD regression was implemented using the majorise-minimisation25,30 (MM) model with default values for iterations (200) and tolerance (0.001) and first-stage OLS regression coefficients provided as initial values.

Software

The LAD-BF test was implemented in varGWAS available in C++ v1.2.3 and R v1.0.0 (refer to the code and data availability section). The MM model used functionality from the cqrReg R-package25 (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cqrReg/index.html). OLS and general matrix functionality were provided with Eigen v3.4.031. BGEN file processing used the BGEN library32 v1.1.6.

The original Brown-Forsythe test used the OSCA software package v0.4613,26. Simulations and follow up UK Biobank analyses were performed using R v3.6.0.

Simulations

The bias and statistical power of the two Brown-Forsythe tests were evaluated through a series of simulation studies reported using the ADEMP structure33 (Table 1 & Supplemental Material and Methods).

View this table:
Table 1. Simulation studies of the Brown-Forsythe test

Participants

UK Biobank is a large prospective cohort study of approximately 500,000 UK participants aged 37-73 at recruitment34. Recruitment took place between 2006-2010 from across the UK. Measures were collected on lifestyle, socio-demographics, physical parameters, health-related factors, and biological samples for genetic testing and biomarker measurements. Ethical approval for the UK Biobank study was granted by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee North West (ref 11/NW/0382). All analyses were performed under approved UK Biobank project 15825 (dataset ID 33352).

Genetic data

Genetic array data were available on 488,377 participants measured using a combination of UK Biobank Axiom™ array (n=438,398) and UK BiLEVE array (n=49,979). Genotype imputation was performed using a reference set combined with UK10K haplotypes and HRC reference panels with the IMPUTE235 software as described36. The following SNPs were removed from analysis leaving a total of 6,812,700: multi-allelic loci, minor allele frequency < 5%, Hardy-Weinberg violations (P < 1 × 10−5), genotype missing rate >5%, low imputation score (INFO < 0.3) and HLA locus (hg19/GRCh37 chr6:23477797-38448354).

Quality control

We applied standard exclusion criteria (Figure S1) to remove genotype-phenotype sex mismatches, aneuploidies, and outliers for missingness or heterozygosity as previously described36 leaving n=486,565 participants. To ensure data independence, closely related subjects were removed as described elsewhere36 leaving n=407,176 participants. Finally, ‘non-white British’ participants defined using published methodology36 were removed to avoid confounding by population stratification providing a total sample size of n=377,076.

Phenotypes

UK Biobank measures of 30 serum biochemistry markers were available for approximately 500k participants. Each measure was chosen based on being an established risk factor for disease, a clinical diagnostic measure or because it characterises a phenotype that is not well assessed by other approaches as described in the UK Biobank documentation37. Quantification and quality control was performed as previously described37. Total physical activity was calculated by summing self-reported duration of walking, moderate and vigorous activity collected using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire as described38. For each analysis participants with missing data were removed. All continuous outcomes were SD normalised.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS)

GWAS of biomarker variability were performed using our LAD regression-based Brown-Forsythe test adjusted for age, sex, and the top ten genetic principal components in first and second regression models. We removed outlier biomarker values with a Z-score > 5SD from the mean to control type I error inflation as previously described13. Quality control was undertaken visually using Q-Q plots to check for a departure of P-value distribution from that expected under the null. Independent vQTLs were identified by clumping GWAS loci that passed the experiment-wise genome-wide evidence threshold P < 1.67 × 10−9 (Bonferroni correction of standard GWAS threshold: p = 5 × 10−8 / 30) using the OpenGWAS API39 with default R2 threshold of 0.001 and 1000 genomes phase 3 European ancestry40.

Gene interaction test

Independent vQTLs (see above) were tested for interaction effects on additive and multiplicative scales using heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors29 adjusted for age, sex, and top ten genetic principal components. To ensure effects were robust to phantom effects41, we performed sensitivity analyses adjusting for fine-mapped main effects identified using SuSiE42 (Supplemental Material and Methods). Interactions surpassing genome-wide association significance (P < 5 × 10−8) on additive and multiplicative scales that did not strongly attenuate with adjustment for fine-mapped main effects were prioritised for subgroup analyses. GxG effects were identified through interaction testing with independent (R2 < 0.001) vQTLs excluding pairwise combinations of vQTLs within a 10Mb window as previously described13. GxE testing was performed using candidate modifiers: age, sex, body mass index, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, daily sugar intake, and daily fat intake.

Subgroup analyses

Subgroup effects of top interaction effects were presented by estimating the SNP effect on the outcome stratified by modifier using heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors29 adjusted for age, sex and top ten genetic principal components. Modifiers were rounded genetic dosage values or prepared by dichotomisation as follows: below or above the median value for continuous variables (group [G] 1, below median; G2, median or greater), ever (G1) vs never (G2) smoker, alcohol intake once a week or more (G1) vs less than once a week on average (G2), males (G1) vs females (G2). Subgroup effects are presented along with the SNP-variance estimates adjusted for age, sex and top ten genetic principial components with and without adjustment for the interaction term (variance effects were not adjusted for sex when sex was the modifier).

Gene annotation

Variance QTLs were annotated with the nearest gene using the closest function of bedtools43 (v2.3.0) and Ensembl v104 (GRCh37) protein-coding features which were filtered to retain HUGO44 valid identifiers. The following annotations were recoded based on expression QTL evidence45,46: rs4530622 SLC2A9, rs11244061 ABO, rs71633359 HSD17B13, rs28413939 TREH, rs281379 FUT2, rs635634 ABO, rs964184 APOA5.

Results

Simulated power and type I error to detect interaction effects by change in variance

The power to detect a difference in trait variability due to an interaction effect was low and equivalent for both methods (Figure S2). Suppose a SNP has a main effect on a normally distributed outcome detectable with 80% power, then 10x the sample size needed to detect the main effect was required to detect the interaction with only 50% power assuming the interaction was half the size of the main effect. Positive skew and kurtosis reduced power. Both methods had equally well controlled type I error (Figure S3).

Simulated variance effect estimate and confidence interval coverage

Under a simulated linear effect of genotype on outcome variance both methods gave the correct effect estimate and 95% confidence interval coverage (Figure 1). However, when the difference in variance was a consequence of an interaction effect, the relationship between the genotype and outcome variance was non-linear and dependent on the modifier. Under these conditions, the variance effect estimate produced using OSCA26,27 from the Brown-Forsythe test P-value gave the incorrect effect size while LAD-BF produced the correct estimate albeit with slightly elevated coverage.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Variance effect estimate accuracy and confidence interval coverage

Variance effect estimate accuracy (A, B) and 95% confidence interval coverage (C, D) of simulated genotypes with linear effect on outcome variance (A, C) or interaction effect (B, D). LAD-BF, least-absolute deviation regression Brown-Forsythe. OSCA-BF, original Brown-Forsythe test implemented in OSCA26 including effect estimate derived from the test P-value27. CI, confidence interval.

Adjusting the LAD-BF test for an interaction effect through simulation

We simulated an interaction effect and compared the LAD-BF test P-value distributions with and without adjusting for the simulated interaction (Figure S4). Including the interaction term in the first-stage regression model completely attenuated the variance test statistic. After identifying an interaction at a variance locus this approach could be applied to determine if additional strong interaction effects exist and could be used in a stepwise regression fashion until all interaction effects are identified.

Runtime performance

Increasing the number of CPU threads reduced the total runtime of both methods to process 1000 SNPs (Figure S5). For the C++ implementation of LAD-BF in varGWAS, the lowest average runtime was 13.6 second (95% CI 13.5, 13.7) using four threads of an Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v4 @ 2.40GHz. Under the same conditions, the original Brown-Forsythe test implemented in OSCA was 1.78x faster (7.61 seconds [95% CI 7.60, 7.63]).

GWAS of variance effects in UK Biobank

We identified 468 independent (R2 < 0.001) vQTLs influencing 24 biomarkers (Figure S6,Figure S7 & Table S1) using an experiment-wise P-value threshold of 1.67 × 10−9 (5 × 10−8 / 30) and no variance effects for albumin, calcium, oestradiol, phosphate, rheumatoid factor, or total protein. Oestradiol and rheumatoid factor were measured on a subset of n=76,674 and n=41,315 participants respectively and therefore were less well powered to detect effects. Of these vQTLs, 270 (57.7%) had suggestive evidence for a variance effect on the log scale (P < 5 × 10−5) and 453 (96.8%) had a mean effect (P < 5 × 10−8). The low concordance between natural and log scales and high concordance between mean and variance effects suggests the presence of mean-variance relationships which is a likely consequence of extreme non-normality for some of the trait distributions (Figure S8).

Gene-environment interaction effects (GxE)

We detected 139 additive and 104 multiplicative GxE effects (P < 5 × 10−8; Figure S9 & Figure S10). Adjusting the additive effects for fine-mapped main effects (Figure S11) led to a small increase in UGT1A8 rs2741047 x sex on direct bilirubin to 0.037 SD (95% CI 0.032, 0.042) from 0.028 SD (95% CI 0.023, 0.033) and minor attenuation of MAP3K4 rs1247295 x sex on lipoprotein a to -0.011 SD (95% CI -0.015, -0.007) from -0.016 SD (95% CI -0.021, -0.010). These findings could reflect the presence of large main effects in imperfect linkage disequilibrium with the index SNP which is known to inflate/deflate test statistics41.

We prioritised 82 GxE effects with evidence on both scales (P < 5 × 10−8) to avoid spurious interactions dependent on scale (Table S2). Of these BMI (n=35), sex (n=27) and age (n=17) modified most effects and smoking status (n=2) and alcohol intake (n=1) fewer. We also tested for interaction by physical activity, and sugar and fat intake but identified little evidence of interactions. The largest effects (Figure 2) were: PNPLA3 rs738409 x BMI on alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 0.08 SD [95% CI 0.08, 0.09]), SLC2A9 rs938555 x sex on urate (−0.08 SD [95% CI -0.09, -0.08]), APOE rs1065853 x sex on low-density lipoprotein (LDL; 0.06 SD [95% CI 0.05, 0.07]), SHBG rs1799941 x sex on testosterone (0.06 SD [95% CI 0.06, 0.06]) and TM6SF2 rs58542926 x BMI on ALT (0.05 SD [95% CI 0.04, 0.06]). Adjusting the variance effect for the interaction term (Figure 2) led to attenuation of PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 on ALT and SHBG rs1799941 on testosterone but strong variance effects on ALT remained at PNPLA3 rs738409 (LAD-BF P_adjust = 1.0 × 10−73) and TM6SF2 rs58542926 (LAD-BF P_adjust = 1.84 × 10−8). There was no strong variance attenuation of APOE rs1065853 on LDL or SLC2A9 rs938555 on urate following adjustment for the interaction (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Effect of top gene-environment interaction loci on trait mean and variance

Per-allele effect of SNP stratified by modifier on outcome mean estimated with heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors29 and unstratified effect of SNP on variance estimated using LAD-BF (genotype 0 vs 1 and 0 vs 2) with or without adjustment for the interaction term. All estimates were adjusted for age, sex (except for rs1065853, rs1799941 and rs938555 on variance as the modifier was sex) and top ten genetic principal components. SD, standard deviation. CI, confidence interval. ALT, alanine aminotransferase. LDL, low-density lipoprotein. BMI, body mass index. Low BMI, <= 26.7 kg/m2. High BMI, > 26.7 kg/m2.

Gene-gene interaction effects (GxG)

We detected eight GxG effects on the additive scale (P < 5 × 10−8; Figure S12), six of which were also associated on the multiplicative scale (P < 5 × 10−8; Figure S13). There was no strong attenuation following adjustment for fine-mapped main effects (Figure S14) suggesting phantom epistasis41,47 was not a major source of bias. ZNF827 rs4835265 x NEDD4L rs4503880 was inversely associated with -0.04 SD (95% CI -0.05, -0.03) gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT), ABO rs635634 x FUT2 rs281379, ABO rs635634 x TREH rs12225548, and TREH rs12225548 x FUT2 rs281379 were associated with 0.08 SD (95% CI 0.07, 0.09), 0.04 SD (95% CI 0.03, 0.05) and 0.02 SD (95% CI 0.02, 0.03) increase in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) respectively, HSD17B13 rs71633359 x PNPLA3 rs738409 and HSD17B13 rs71633359 x PNPLA3 rs3747207 were associated with -0.04 SD (95% CI -0.05, -0.03) and - 0.04 SD (95% CI -0.05, -0.03) decrease in ALT and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) respectively (Figure 3). Adjusting the variance effects for the interaction term had no strong impact on the variance estimate (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Effect of top gene-gene interaction loci on trait mean and variance

Per allele effect of SNP stratified by modifier on outcome mean estimated with heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors29 and unstratified effect of SNP on variance estimated using LAD-BF (genotype 0 vs 1 and 0 vs 2) with or without adjustment for the interaction term. All estimates were adjusted for age, sex, and top ten genetic principal components. SD, standard deviation. CI, confidence interval. ALP, alkaline phosphatase. ALT, alanine aminotransferase. AST, aspartate aminotransferase. GGT, gamma glutamyltransferase.

Discussion

Here we demonstrate the value of variance GWAS in identifying 468 independent vQTLs with evidence of interaction on 24 serum biochemistry phenotypes in UK Biobank and subsequently identify 82 GxE and six GxG scale independent effects. To facilitate this large-scale analysis on∼337K UK Biobank participants we developed an efficient C++ implementation of a LAD regression-based Brown-Forsythe test22 (implemented in varGWAS) with functionality to reliably estimate variance effects and compared the test with the original non-parametric version (implemented in OSCA13,26) through a series of simulations.

Although the power to detect genetic interaction effects using variance prioritisation was low, when applied to large sample sizes such as UK Biobank strong evidence for association can be identified as demonstrated in this study and by Wang et al13. We found LAD-BF had several advantages over the original non-parametric test when applied to GWAS. First, LAD-BF directly supports adjustment for covariates (although this could be achieved using the original test if applied to pre-adjusted phenotypes13). Second, LAD-BF can test effects of continuous genotypes which enables application to the expected genotype value (“dose”) from imputed SNP array data. Third, our model provides a variance effect estimate which is valid when there is a SNP interaction effect, unlike the implementation of the original Brown-Forsythe test in OSCA which provides an incorrect variance effect estimate derived from the test P-value27. We also demonstrate through simulation that adjusting the variance effect for the interaction term causes attenuation which is useful to determine if other interactions exist and could potentially be applied using stepwise regression until all interaction effects are discovered, subject to sufficient power. However, there are some disadvantages. The runtime was 75% longer than the original test implemented in OSCA, although this is still fast enough to allow large-scale analyses. Second, the effect estimate (but not test statistic) is based on normality assumptions which may be violated in practice.

The largest GxE effects replicate existing findings: PNPLA3 rs738409 x BMI on ALT levels48,49, SLC2A9 rs938555 x sex on urate50, APOE rs1065853 x sex on LDL51, SHBG rs1799941 x sex on testosterone52, and TM6SF2 rs58542926 x BMI on ALT48. Adjusting the variance effect for the interaction led to attenuation of PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 on ALT and SHBG rs1799941 on testosterone, however strong evidence of variance effects remained for ALT at PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 suggesting other interaction effects may exist at these loci. The variance effect of SHBG rs1799941 on testosterone was weak after adjusting for rs1799941 x sex suggesting no strong evidence of further interaction effects on testosterone at this locus, but the test may be underpowered to detect additional effects.

We replicated previous GxG effects of ABO rs635634 x FUT2 rs281379 on ALP53,54 and HSD17B13 rs71633359 x PNPLA3 rs738409/rs3747207 on ALT and AST55,56 and find no strong evidence of ‘phantom epistasis’ 41,47 as a potential explanation. Additionally, we identified novel effects of TREH rs12225548 x FUT2 rs281379 and ABO rs635634 x TREH rs12225548 on ALP and ZNF827 rs4835265 x NEDD4L rs4503880 on GGT. ABO blood group antigens and secretion status are thought to influence ALP clearance57,58. TREH rs12225548 has a strong main effect on ALP39,59,60 and interactions of these loci may be explained by interplay of ALP production and clearance mechanisms. ZNF827 and NEDD4L loci have previously been reported to influence GGT levels in independent populations but the mechanism is unclear61,62.

None of the GxG loci variance effects strongly attenuated after adjusting for the interaction term. This could be a consequence of low power since the interaction effect likely explains a very small amount of the trait variance but could also indicate the presence of other interaction effects involving the same SNP not included in the variance model. Indeed, we found strong GxE evidence at some of these loci: ABO rs635634 x sex on ALP, HSD17B13 rs71633359 x BMI and PNPLA3 rs738409/rs3747207 x BMI on ALT and AST.

Evidence of gene-interaction effects could suggest the protein product also has an interaction effect. In which case interventions developed to target the protein will show differential effects on the indication and could have low or no efficacy in some subgroups63. Such evidence could be important to support developments in stratified medicine. Therefore, vQTL evidence may have a role in preclinical drug development to deprioritise targets given the possibility of target-outcome heterogeneous effects. Further research is needed to appraise the utility of vQTLs in the drug development pipeline as has been done for protein QTLs64.

However, there are other explanations for vQTLs that are not in terms of biology. First, loci that are weakly correlated with a SNP having a strong main effect can introduce a phantom vQTL65,66. In this situation variance is introduced through variability in LD between the artefactual vQTL and QTL. Second, vQTLs could signify fluctuation of a trait measurement within an individual over time10 and may originate from normal biological processes such as circadian rhythm. Third, we assume homogeneity of variance within each genotype group which could be violated by the mean-variance relationship and observed low concordance of vQTL effects on the log and natural scales are evidence for this. Additionally, our interactions could be explained by non-linear relationships between the exposure and outcome or scale artefacts67. We sought to reduce the latter by replicating effects on additive and multiplicative scales.

Through this work we performed hypothesis-free analyses of genetic interaction effects on 30 blood biomarkers in UK Biobank using variance prioritisation and found evidence for 88 effects. Many of our top findings replicate previously reported associations, but we also report first evidence of TREH rs12225548 x FUT2 rs281379 and TREH rs12225548 x ABO rs635634 on ALP and ZNF827 rs4835265 x NEDD4L rs4503880 on GGT. Additionally, we show variance attenuation of PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 on ALT and SHBG rs1799941 on testosterone after adjusting for the interaction indicating these effects were contributing to the variance association, but the ALT effects were still strong suggesting additional interactions may exist at these loci. These data could be used to discover possible subgroup effects for a given biomarker during preclinical drug development. To facilitate our analysis, we developed C++ variance GWAS software that implements a LAD-regression based Brown-Forsythe test, provide a convenient R-package based on this software and introduce methodology to estimate the variance effects which can be applied to other studies.

Data Availability

Software to perform variance GWAS using the LAD Brown-Forsythe model is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS and R-package for ad hoc analyses is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWASR. Code for performing simulation studies is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS/sim. Code for running the UK Biobank analysis is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS-ukbb-biomarkers. Full variance GWAS summary statistics are available from the OpenGWAS project. All code repositories are available under the GPL v3 license.

https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS

https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWASR

https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS-ukbb-biomarkers

https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/

Supplemental information description

Supplemental Material and Methods

Figure S1. UK Biobank participant inclusion criteria

Figure S2. Power to detect SNP-interaction effects using variance testing under simulation

Figure S3. Type I error of Brown-Forsythe tests

Figure S4. Effect of adjustment for the interaction effect on variance test P-value distribution

Figure S5. Runtime performance of varGWAS and OSCA

Figure S6. Manhattan plots of biomarker variance GWAS using regression-based Brown-Forsythe test

Figure S7. Q-Q plots of biomarker variance GWAS using regression-based Brown-Forsythe test

Figure S8. Biomarker distribution

Figure S9. Top gene-by-environment interaction effects (P < 5 × 10−8) on biomarker concentration using additive scale

Figure S10. Top gene-by-environment interaction effects (P < 5 × 10−8) on biomarker concentration using multiplicative scale

Figure S11. Top gene-by-environment interaction effects (P < 5 × 10−8) on biomarker concentration using additive scale adjusted for fine-mapped main effect

Figure S12. Top gene-by-gene interaction effects (P < 5 × 10−8) on biomarker concentration using additive scale

Figure S13. Top gene-by-gene interaction effects (P < 5 × 10−8) on biomarker concentration using multiplicative scale

Figure S14. Top gene-by-gene interaction effects (P < 5 × 10−8) on biomarker concentration using additive scale adjusted for fine-mapped main effects

Table S1. GWAS summary statistics for top vQTLs identified through this study

Table S2. Top GxG/GxE effect summary statistics

Table S3. Fine-mapped loci covariates

Declaration of Interests

T.R.G receives funding from Biogen for unrelated research. K.T has been paid for consultancy for CHDI.

Code and data availability

Software to perform variance GWAS using the LAD Brown-Forsythe model is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS and R-package for ad hoc analyses is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWASR. Code for performing simulation studies is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS/sim. Code for running the UK Biobank analysis is available from https://github.com/MRCIEU/varGWAS-ukbb-biomarkers. Full variance GWAS summary statistics are available from the OpenGWAS project39,68. All code repositories are available under the GPL v3 license.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work was also funded by the UK Medical Research Council as part of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/3 and MC_UU_00011/4). L.A.C.M is funded by a University of Bristol Vice-Chancellor’s fellowship.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Holmes, M. V., Richardson, T.G., Ference, B.A., Davies, N.M., and Davey Smith, G. (2021). Integrating genomics with biomarkers and therapeutic targets to invigorate cardiovascular drug development. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 18, 435–453.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Chen, V.L., Du, X., Chen, Y., Kuppa, A., Handelman, S.K., Vohnoutka, R.B., Peyser, P.A., Palmer, N.D., Bielak, L.F., Halligan, B., et al. (2021). Genome-wide association study of serum liver enzymes implicates diverse metabolic and liver pathology. Nat. Commun. 2021 121 12, 1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Pekkanen, J., Linn, S., Heiss, G., Suchindran, C.M., Leon, A., Rifkind, B.M., and Tyroler, H.A. (2010). Ten-Year Mortality from Cardiovascular Disease in Relation to Cholesterol Level among Men with and without Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease. NEJM 322, 1700–1707.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (2002). Reduction of the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N. Engl. J. Med. 34, 162–163.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Seth, R., Kydd, A.S., Buchbinder, R., Bombardier, C., and Edwards, C.J. (2014). Allopurinol for chronic gout. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014.
  6. 6.↵
    Hunter, D.J. (2005). Gene–environment interactions in human diseases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005 64 6, 287–298.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Brookes, S.T., Whitely, E., Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Mulheran, P.A., and Peters, T.J. (2004). Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 57, 229–236.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Smith, P.G., and Day, N.E. (1984). The Design of Case-Control Studies: The Influence of Confounding and Interaction Effects. Int. J. Epidemiol. 13, 356–365.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Deng, W.Q., and Paré, G. (2011). A fast algorithm to optimize SNP prioritization for gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Genet. Epidemiol. 35, 729–738.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Paré, G., Cook, N.R., Ridker, P.M., and Chasman, D.I. (2010). On the Use of Variance per Genotype as a Tool to Identify Quantitative Trait Interaction Effects: A Report from the Women’s Genome Health Study. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Rönnegård, L., and Valdar, W. (2012). Recent developments in statistical methods for detecting genetic loci affecting phenotypic variability. BMC Genet. 2012 131 13, 1–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Yang, J., Loos, R.J.F., Powell, J.E., Medland, S.E., Speliotes, E.K., Chasman, D.I., Rose, L.M., Thorleifsson, G., Steinthorsdottir, V., Mägi, R., et al. (2012). FTO genotype is associated with phenotypic variability of body mass index. Nature 490, 267–272.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Wang, H., Zhang, F., Zeng, J., Wu, Y., Kemper, K.E., Xue, A., Zhang, M., Powell, J.E., Goddard, M.E., Wray, N.R., et al. (2019). Genotype-by-environment interactions inferred from genetic effects on phenotypic variability in the UK Biobank. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw3538.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Brown, A.A., Buil, A., Viñuela, A., Lappalainen, T., Zheng, H.F., Richards, J.B., Small, K.S., Spector, T.D., Dermitzakis, E.T., and Durbin, R. (2014). Genetic interactions affecting human gene expression identified by variance association mapping. Elife 2014, e01381.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Staley, J.R., Windmeijer, F., Suderman, M., Lyon, M.S., Davey Smith, G., and Tilling, K. (2021). A robust mean and variance test with application to high-dimensional phenotypes. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 1, 1–11.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Revez, J.A., Lin, T., Qiao, Z., Xue, A., Holtz, Y., Zhu, Z., Zeng, J., Wang, H., Sidorenko, J., Kemper, K.E., et al. (2020). Genome-wide association study identifies 143 loci associated with 25 hydroxyvitamin D concentration. Nat. Commun. 2020 111 11, 1–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Liu, D., Ban, H.-J., El Sergani, A.M., Lee, M.K., Hecht, J.T., Wehby, G.L., Moreno, L.M., Feingold, E., Marazita, M.L., Cha, S., et al. (2021). PRICKLE1 × FOCAD Interaction Revealed by Genome-Wide vQTL Analysis of Human Facial Traits. Front. Genet. 0, 1112.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Young, A.I., Wauthier, F.L., and Donnelly, P. (2018). Identifying loci affecting trait variability and detecting interactions in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 50, 1608–1614.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    Dumitrascu, B., Darnell, G., Ayroles, J., and Engelhardt, B.E. (2019). Statistical tests for detecting variance effects in quantitative trait studies. Bioinformatics 35, 200–210.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Corty, R.W., and Valdar, W. (2018). QTL mapping on a background of variance heterogeneity. G3 Genes, Genomes, Genet. 8, 3767–3782.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Levene, H. (1960). Robust testes for equality of variances. Contrib. to Probab. Stat. 278– 292.
  22. 22.↵
    Brown, M.B., and Forsythe, A.B. (1974). Robust tests for the equality of variances. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 364–367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Soave, D., and Sun, L. (2017). A generalized Levene’s scale test for variance heterogeneity in the presence of sample correlation and group uncertainty. Biometrics 73, 960–971.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Glejser, H. (1969). A New Test for Heteroskedasticity. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64, 316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Pietrosanu, M., Gao, J., Kong, L., Jiang, B., and Niu, D. (2020). Advanced algorithms for penalized quantile and composite quantile regression. Comput. Stat. 2020 361 36, 333–346.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Zhang, F., Chen, W., Zhu, Z., Zhang, Q., Nabais, M.F., Qi, T., Deary, I.J., Wray, N.R., Visscher, P.M., McRae, A.F., et al. (2019). OSCA: a tool for omic-data-based complex trait analysis. Genome Biol. 2019 201 20, 1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Zhu, Z., Zhang, F., Hu, H., Bakshi, A., Robinson, M.R., Powell, J.E., Montgomery, G.W., Goddard, M.E., Wray, N.R., Visscher, P.M., et al. (2016). Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nat. Genet. 48, 481–487.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Oehlert, G.W. (1992). A Note on the Delta Method. Source Am. Stat. 46, 27–29.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    White, H. (1980). A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48, 817.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Hunter, D.R., and Lange, K. (2000). Quantile Regression via an MM Algorithm. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 9, 60.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Guennebaud, G., Jacob, B., and others (2010). Eigen v3.
  32. 32.↵
    Band, G., and Marchini, J. (2018). BGEN: a binary file format for imputed genotype and haplotype data. BioRxiv 308296.
  33. 33.↵
    Morris, T.P., White, I.R., and Crowther, M.J. (2019). Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat. Med. 38, 2074–2102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Bycroft, C., Freeman, C., Petkova, D., Band, G., Elliott, L.T., Sharp, K., Motyer, A., Vukcevic, D., Delaneau, O., O’Connell, J., et al. (2018). The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562, 203–209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Howie, B., Marchini, J., and Stephens, M. (2011). Genotype imputation with thousands of genomes. G3 Genes, Genomes, Genet. 1, 457–470.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Mitchell, R.E., Hemani, G., Dudding, T., Corbin, L., Harrison, S., and Paternoster, L. UK Biobank Genetic Data: MRC-IEU Quality Control, version 2, 18/01/2019.
  37. 37.↵
    Fry, D., Almond, R., Moffat, S., Gordon, M., and Singh, P. (2019). UK Biobank Biomarker Project Companion Document to Accompany Serum Biomarker Data.
  38. 38.↵
    Cassidy, S., Chau, J.Y., Catt, M., Bauman, A., and Trenell, M.I. (2016). Cross-sectional study of diet, physical activity, television viewing and sleep duration in 233 110 adults from the UK Biobank; the behavioural phenotype of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open 6, e010038.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Elsworth, B., Lyon, M., Alexander, T., Liu, Y., Matthews, P., Hallett, J., Bates, P., Palmer, T., Haberland, V., Davey Smith, G., et al. (2020). The MRC IEU OpenGWAS data infrastructure. BioRxiv 2020.08.10.244293.
  40. 40.↵
    Auton, A., Abecasis, G.R., Altshuler, D.M., Durbin, R.M., Bentley, D.R., Chakravarti, A., Clark, A.G., Donnelly, P., Eichler, E.E., Flicek, P., et al. (2015). A global reference for human genetic variation. Nat. 2015 5267571 526, 68–74.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Hemani, G., Powell, J.E., Wang, H., Shakhbazov, K., Westra, H.-J., Esko, T., Henders, A.K., McRae, A.F., Martin, N.G., Metspalu, A., et al. (2021). Phantom epistasis between unlinked loci. Nat. 2021 5967871 596, E1–E3.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Wang, G., Sarkar, A., Carbonetto, P., and Stephens, M. (2020). A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Statistical Methodology). 82, 1273–1300.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Quinlan, A.R., and Hall, I.M. (2010). BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinforma. Appl. NOTE 26, 841–842.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Tweedie, S., Braschi, B., Gray, K., Jones, T.E.M., Seal, R.L., Yates, B., and Bruford, E.A. (2021). Genenames.org: The HGNC and VGNC resources in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D939–D946.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Võsa, U., Claringbould, A., Westra, H.-J., Bonder, M.J., Deelen, P., Zeng, B., Kirsten, H., Saha, A., Kreuzhuber, R., Yazar, S., et al. (2021). Large-scale cis- and trans-eQTL analyses identify thousands of genetic loci and polygenic scores that regulate blood gene expression. Nat. Genet. 2021 539 53, 1300–1310.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
  47. 47.↵
    Campos, G. de los, Sorensen, D.A., and Toro, M.A. (2019). Imperfect Linkage Disequilibrium Generates Phantom Epistasis (& Perils of Big Data). G3 Genes, Genomes, Genet. 9, 1429–1436.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Stender, S., Kozlitina, J., Nordestgaard, B.G., Tybjaerg-Hansen, A., Hobbs, H.H., and Cohen, J.C. (2017). Adiposity Amplifies the Genetic Risk of Fatty Liver Disease Conferred by Multiple Loci HHS Public Access Author manuscript. Nat Genet 49, 842–847.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Viitasalo, A., Pihlajamaki, J., Lindi, V., Atalay, M., Kaminska, D., Joro, R., and Lakka, T.A. (2015). Associations of I148M variant in PNPLA3 gene with plasma ALT levels during 2-year follow-up in normal weight and overweight children: The PANIC Study. Pediatr. Obes. 10, 84–90.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Döring, A., Gieger, C., Mehta, D., Gohlke, H., Prokisch, H., Coassin, S., Fischer, G., Henke, K., Klopp, N., Kronenberg, F., et al. (2008). SLC2A9 influences uric acid concentrations with pronounced sex-specific effects. Nat. Genet. 2008 404 40, 430–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    Ferrières, J., Sing, C.F., Roy, M., Davignon, J., and Lussier-Cacan, S. (1994). Apolipoprotein E polymorphism and heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Sex-specific effects. Arterioscler. Thromb. a J. Vasc. Biol. 14, 1553–1560.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Ruth, K.S., Day, F.R., Tyrrell, J., Thompson, D.J., Wood, A.R., Mahajan, A., Beaumont, R.N., Wittemans, L., Martin, S., Busch, A.S., et al. (2020). Using human genetics to understand the disease impacts of testosterone in men and women. Nat. Med. 2020 262 26, 252–258.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Masuda, M., Okuda, K., Ikeda, D.D., Hishigaki, H., and Fujiwara, T. (2015). Interaction of genetic markers associated with serum alkaline phosphatase levels in the Japanese population. Hum. Genome Var. 2015 21 2, 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Langman, M.J.S., Leuthold, E., Robson, E.B., Harris, J., Luffman, J.E., and Harris, H. (1966). Influence of diet on the “intestinal” component of serum alkaline phosphates in people of different ABO blood groups and secretor status. Nature 212, 41–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Abul-Husn, N.S., Cheng, X., Li, A.H., Xin, Y., Schurmann, C., Stevis, P., Liu, Y., Kozlitina, J., Stender, S., Wood, G.C., et al. (2018). A Protein-Truncating HSD17B13 Variant and Protection from Chronic Liver Disease. NEJM 378, 1096–1106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Gellert-Kristensen, H., Richardson, T.G., Davey Smith, G., Nordestgaard, B.G., Tybjærg-Hansen, A., and Stender, S. (2020). Combined Effect of PNPLA3, TM6SF2, and HSD17B13 Variants on Risk of Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the General Population. Hepatology 72, 845–856.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.↵
    Bayer, P.M., Hotschek, H., and Knoth, E. (1980). Intestinal alkaline phosphatase and the ABO blood group system--a new aspect. Clin. Chim. Acta. 108, 81–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.↵
    Nakano, T., Shimanuki, T., Matsushita, M., Koyama, I., Inoue, I., Katayama, S., Alpers, D.H., and Komoda, T. (2006). Involvement of intestinal alkaline phosphatase in serum apolipoprotein B-48 level and its association with ABO and secretor blood group types. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 341, 33–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. 59.↵
    Neale, B., et al. UK Biobank GWAS, http://www.nealelab.is/uk-biobank
  60. 60.↵
    Kanai, M., Akiyama, M., Takahashi, A., Matoba, N., Momozawa, Y., Ikeda, M., Iwata, N., Ikegawa, S., Hirata, M., Matsuda, K., et al. (2018). Genetic analysis of quantitative traits in the Japanese population links cell types to complex human diseases. Nat. Genet. 50, 390– 400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    Young, K.A., Palmer, N.D., Fingerlin, T.E., Langefeld, C.D., Norris, J.M., Wang, N., Xiang, A.H., Guo, X., Williams, A.H., Chen, Y.D.I., et al. (2019). Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Loci for Liver Enzyme Concentrations in Mexican-Americans: The GUARDIAN Consortium. Obesity (Silver Spring). 27, 1331.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    Chambers, J.C., Zhang, W., Sehmi, J.S., Li, X., Wass, M.N., Van der Harst, P., Holm, H., Sanna, S., Kavousi, M., Baumeister, S.E., et al. (2011). Genome-wide association study identifies loci influencing concentrations of liver enzymes in plasma. Nat. Genet. 2011 4311 43, 1131–1138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    Xu, Z.M., and Burgess, S. (2020). Polygenic modelling of treatment effect heterogeneity. Genet. Epidemiol. 44, 868–879.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Zheng, J., Haberland, V., Baird, D., Walker, V., Haycock, P.C., Hurle, M.R., Gutteridge, A., Erola, P., Liu, Y., Luo, S., et al. (2020). Phenome-wide Mendelian randomization mapping the influence of the plasma proteome on complex diseases. Nat. Genet. 2020 5210 52, 1122– 1131.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Cao, Y., Wei, P., Bailey, M., Kauwe, J.S.K., and Maxwell, T.J. (2014). A versatile omnibus test for detecting mean and variance heterogeneity. Genet. Epidemiol. 38, 51–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    Ek, W.E., Rask-Andersen, M., Karlsson, T., Enroth, S., Gyllensten, U., and Johansson, Å. (2018). Genetic variants influencing phenotypic variance heterogeneity. Hum. Mol. Genet. 27, 799–810.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Rees, J.M.B., Foley, C.N., and Burgess, S. (2020). Factorial Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants to assess interactions. Int. J. Epidemiol. 49, 1147–1158.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Lyon, M.S., Andrews, S.J., Elsworth, B., Gaunt, T.R., Hemani, G., and Marcora, E. (2021). The variant call format provides efficient and robust storage of GWAS summary statistics. Genome Biol. 22, 32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted January 05, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Hypothesis-free detection of gene-interaction effects on biomarker concentration in UK Biobank using variance prioritisation
Matthew S. Lyon, Louise A. C. Millard, George Davey Smith, Tom R. Gaunt, Kate Tilling
medRxiv 2022.01.05.21268406; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.05.21268406
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area