Explore the vast range of titles available.

Replicable genetic association signals have consistently been found through genome-wide association studies in recent years. The recent dramatic expansion of study sizes improves power of estimation of effect sizes, genomic prediction, causal inference, and polygenic selection, but it simultaneously increases susceptibility of these methods to bias due to subtle population structure. Standard methods using genetic principal components to correct for structure might not always be appropriate and we use a simulation study to illustrate when correction might be ineffective for avoiding biases. New methods such as trans-ethnic modeling and chromosome painting allow for a richer understanding of the relationship between traits and population structure. We illustrate the arguments using real examples (stroke and educational attainment) and provide a more nuanced understanding of population structure, which is set to be revisited as a critical aspect of future analyses in genetic epidemiology. We also make simple recommendations for how problems can be avoided in the future. Our results have particular importance for the implementation of GWAS meta-analysis, for prediction of traits, and for causal inference.

Genetic sequencing data from more than 4,000 Chinese participants in the Born in Guangzhou Cohort Study provide insights into the population, and a snapshot of what is to come in future phases of the project. China’s huge birth cohort study starts yielding genetics data.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992. The resource provides an informative and efficient setting for collecting data on the current coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In early March 2020, a questionnaire was developed in collaboration with other longitudinal population studies to ensure cross-cohort comparability. It targeted retrospective and current COVID-19 infection information (exposure assessment, symptom tracking and reported clinical outcomes) and the impact of both disease and mitigating measures implemented to manage the COVID-19 crisis more broadly. Data were collected on symptoms of COVID-19 and seasonal flu, travel prior to the pandemic, mental health and social, behavioural and lifestyle factors. The online questionnaire was deployed across parent (G0) and offspring (G1) generations between 9 th April and 15 th May 2020. 6807 participants completed the questionnaire (2706 original mothers, 1014 original fathers/partners, 2973 offspring (mean age ~28 years) and 114 offspring partners). Eight (0.01%) participants (4 G0 and 4 G1) reported a positive test for COVID-19, 77 (1.13%; 28 G0 and 49 G1) reported that they had been told by a doctor they likely had COVID-19 and 865 (12.7%; 426 G0 and 439 G1) suspected that they have had COVID-19.  Using algorithmically defined cases, we estimate that the predicted proportion of COVID-19 cases ranged from 1.03% - 4.19% depending on timing during the period of reporting (October 2019-March 2020). Data from this first questionnaire will be complemented with at least two more follow-up questionnaires, linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Data has been released as: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as a composite release coordinating data from the existing resource, thus enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study.

Initial genomewide association studies were exceptional owing to an ability to yield novel and reliable evidence for heritable contributions to complex disease and phenotype. However the top results alone were certainly not responsible for a wave of new predictive tools. Despite this, even studies small by contemporary standards were able to provide estimates of the relative contribution of all recorded genetic variants to outcome. Sparking efforts to quantify heritability, these results also provided the material for genomewide prediction. A fantastic growth in the performance of human genetic studies has only served to improve the potential of these complex, but potentially informative predictors. Prompted by these conditions and recent work, this letter explores the likely utility of these predictors, considers how clinical practice might be altered through their use, how to measure the efficacy of this and some of the potential ethical issues involved. Ultimately we suggest that for common genetic variation at least, the future should contain an acceptance of complexity in genetic architecture and the possibility of useful prediction even if only to shift the way we interact with clinical service providers.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 from the Bristol area (UK). ALSPAC has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. From 2012, ALSPAC has identified G1 participants who were pregnant (or their partner was) or had become parents, and enrolled them, their partners, and children in the ALSPAC-Generation 2 (ALSPAC-G2) study, providing a unique multi-generational cohort. At present, approximately 1,100 G2 children (excluding those in utero ) from 810 G1 participants have been enrolled. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, ALSPAC rapidly deployed two online questionnaires; one during the initial lockdown phase in 2020 (9 th April-15 th May), and another when national lockdown restrictions were eased (26 th May-5 th July). As part of this second questionnaire, G1 parents completed a questionnaire about each of their G2 children. This covered: parental reports of children’s feelings and behaviour since lockdown, school attendance, contact patterns, and health. A total of 289 G1 participants completed this questionnaire on behalf of 411 G2 children. This COVID-19 G2 questionnaire data can be combined with pre-pandemic ALSPAC-G2 data, plus ALSPAC-G1 and -G0 data, to understand how children’s health and behaviour has been affected by the pandemic and its management. Data from this questionnaire will be complemented with linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Prospective studies are necessary to understand the impact of this pandemic on children’s health and development, yet few relevant studies exist; this resource will aid these efforts. Data has been released as: 1) a freely-available dataset containing participant responses with key sociodemographic variables; and 2) an ALSPAC-held dataset which can be combined with existing ALSPAC data, enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 from the Bristol area (UK). ALSPAC has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. From 2012, ALSPAC has identified G1 participants who were pregnant (or their partner was) or had become parents, and enrolled them, their partners, and children in the ALSPAC-Generation 2 (ALSPAC-G2) study, providing a unique multi-generational cohort. At present, approximately 1,100 G2 children (excluding those in utero ) from 810 G1 participants have been enrolled. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, ALSPAC rapidly deployed two online questionnaires; one during the initial lockdown phase in 2020 (9 th April-15 th May), and another when national lockdown restrictions were eased (26 th May-5 th July). As part of this second questionnaire, G1 parents completed a questionnaire about each of their G2 children. This covered: parental reports of children’s feelings and behaviour since lockdown, school attendance, contact patterns, and health. A total of 289 G1 participants completed this questionnaire on behalf of 411 G2 children. This COVID-19 G2 questionnaire data can be combined with pre-pandemic ALSPAC-G2 data, plus ALSPAC-G1 and -G0 data, to understand how children’s health and behaviour has been affected by the pandemic and its management. Data from this questionnaire will be complemented with linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Prospective studies are necessary to understand the impact of this pandemic on children’s health and development, yet few relevant studies exist; this resource will aid these efforts. Data has been released as: 1) a freely-available dataset containing participant responses with key sociodemographic variables; and 2) an ALSPAC-held dataset which can be combined with existing ALSPAC data, enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study.

Loci discovered by genome-wide association studies predominantly map outside protein-coding genes. The interpretation of the functional consequences of non-coding variants can be greatly enhanced by catalogs of regulatory genomic regions in cell lines and primary tissues. However, robust and readily applicable methods are still lacking by which to systematically evaluate the contribution of these regions to genetic variation implicated in diseases or quantitative traits. Here we propose a novel approach that leverages genome-wide association studies’ findings with regulatory or functional annotations to classify features relevant to a phenotype of interest. Within our framework, we account for major sources of confounding not offered by current methods. We further assess enrichment of genome-wide association studies for 19 traits within Encyclopedia of DNA Elements- and Roadmap-derived regulatory regions. We characterize unique enrichment patterns for traits and annotations driving novel biological insights. The method is implemented in standalone software and an R package, to facilitate its application by the research community. GARFIELD is a new approach that classifies genomic features related to phenotypes on the basis of integrating GWAS signals with functional annotations. GARFIELD is used to characterize enrichment patterns for 29 traits integrated with ENCODE and Roadmap Epigenomics annotations.

A recent study by Karunakaran et al. suggests that RIPK1 is important in obesity and related metabolic traits. With genetic variation associated with expression and the risk of obesity, and repression of activity leading to a favourable metabolic profile in an obesogenic model, is there evidence for a potential therapeutic role?

The adipocyte-derived protein adiponectin is highly heritable and inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and coronary heart disease (CHD). We meta-analyzed 3 genome-wide association studies for circulating adiponectin levels (n = 8,531) and sought validation of the lead single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 5 additional cohorts (n = 6,202). Five SNPs were genome-wide significant in their relationship with adiponectin (P< or =5x10(-8)). We then tested whether these 5 SNPs were associated with risk of T2D and CHD using a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P< or =0.011 to declare statistical significance for these disease associations. SNPs at the adiponectin-encoding ADIPOQ locus demonstrated the strongest associations with adiponectin levels (P-combined = 9.2x10(-19) for lead SNP, rs266717, n = 14,733). A novel variant in the ARL15 (ADP-ribosylation factor-like 15) gene was associated with lower circulating levels of adiponectin (rs4311394-G, P-combined = 2.9x10(-8), n = 14,733). This same risk allele at ARL15 was also associated with a higher risk of CHD (odds ratio [OR] = 1.12, P = 8.5x10(-6), n = 22,421) more nominally, an increased risk of T2D (OR = 1.11, P = 3.2x10(-3), n = 10,128), and several metabolic traits. Expression studies in humans indicated that ARL15 is well-expressed in skeletal muscle. These findings identify a novel protein, ARL15, which influences circulating adiponectin levels and may impact upon CHD risk.

In the original article publication, there is an incorrect impression that Fig. 1 formed a formal Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) by describing it as a causal model. However, it was not correct if interpreted in this way