Evidence Hub

A Meta-Analysis of the Transferability of Bone Mineral Density Genetic Loci Associations From European to African Ancestry Populations

Michelle S. Yau, Allison L. Kuipers, Ryan Price, A. Nicolas, Salman M. Tajuddin, Samuel K. Handelman, L. Arbeeva, A. Chesi et al.

Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2020

5,000 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Genetic studies of bone mineral density (BMD) largely have been conducted in European populations. We therefore conducted a meta‐analysis of six independent African ancestry cohorts to determine whether previously reported BMD loci identified in European populations were transferable to African ancestry populations. We included nearly 5000 individuals with both genetic data and assessments of BMD. Genotype imputation was conducted using the 1000G reference panel. We assessed single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations with femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD in each cohort separately, then combined results in fixed effects (or random effects if study heterogeneity was high, I2 index >60) inverse variance weighted meta‐analyses. In secondary analyses, we conducted locus‐based analyses of rare variants using SKAT‐O. Mean age ranged from 12 to 68 years. One cohort included only men and another cohort included only women; the proportion of women in the other four cohorts ranged from 52% to 63%. Of 56 BMD loci tested, one locus, 6q25 (C6orf97, p = 8.87 × 10−4), was associated with lumbar spine BMD and two loci, 7q21 (SLC25A13, p = 2.84 × 10−4) and 7q31 (WNT16, p = 2.96 × 10−5), were associated with femoral neck BMD. Effects were in the same direction as previously reported in European ancestry studies and met a Bonferroni‐adjusted p value threshold, the criteria for transferability to African ancestry populations. We also found associations that met locus‐specific…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,000 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free