Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing need for effective incorporation of high-dimensional genetics data from individuals with varied ancestry in genome-wide association (GWAS) analyses. Classically, multi-ancestry GWAS analyses are performed using statistical meta-analysis to combine results conducted within homogeneous ancestry groups. The emergence of cosmopolitan reference panels makes collective preprocessing of GWAS data possible, but impact on downstream GWAS results in a mega-analysis framework merits investigation. We utilized GWAS data from the multi-national Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study to investigate differences in GWAS findings using a homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis versus a heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis pipeline. Maternal fasting and 1-hr glucose and metabolomics measured during a 2-hr 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test during early third trimester pregnancy were evaluated as phenotypes. RESULTS: For the homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis pipeline, variant data were prepared by identifying sets of individuals with similar ancestry and imputing to ancestry-specific reference panels. GWAS was conducted within each ancestry group and results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. For the heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis pipeline, data for all individuals were collectively imputed to the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) cosmopolitan reference panel, and GWAS was conducted using a unified mega-analysis. The meta-analysis pipeline identified genome-wide significant associations for 15 variants in a region close to GCK on chromosome 7 with maternal fasting glucose and no significant findings for 1-hr glucose. Associations in this same region were identified using the mega-analysis pipeline, along with a well-documented association at MTNR1B on chromosome 11 with both fasting and 1-hr maternal glucose. For metabolomics analyses, the number of significant findings in the heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis far exceeded those from the homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis and confirmed many previously documented associations, but genomic inflation factors were much more variable. CONCLUSIONS: For multi-ancestry GWAS, heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis generates a rich set of variants for analysis using a cosmopolitan reference panel and results in vastly more significant, biologically credible and previously documented associations than a homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis approach. Genomic inflation factors do indicate that findings from the mega-analysis pipeline may merit cautious interpretation and further follow-up.