Three open questions in polygenic score portability

The broad adoption of polygenic scores (PGS) is hindered by their limited portability to people that differ-in genetic ancestry or other characteristics-from the GWAS samples used to construct them. Here, we measure PGS prediction accuracy as a continuous function of individuals' genome-wide genetic dissimilarity to the GWAS sample (genetic distance). Our results highlight three gaps in our understanding of PGS portability. First, variation in individual-level prediction accuracy is only weakly predicted by genetic distance. In fact, it is explained comparably well by socioeconomic measures. Second, trends of portability vary across traits. For several immunity-related traits, prediction accuracy drops near zero even at intermediate genetic distances-potentially reflecting fast evolutionary turnover of genetic variants associated with immunity. Third, even qualitative trends of portability can depend on how we measure predictive performance. For instance, for type 2 diabetes, precision remains roughly constant, while recall surprisingly increases with genetic distance. Together, our results show that portability cannot be understood through global ancestry groupings alone. Other, understudied factors influence portability, including the specifics of trait evolution, genetic architecture, social context, and the construction of the PGS. Addressing these gaps can aid in the development of PGS and inform more equitable applications.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2026-01-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68565-3
Primary Topic
Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Three open questions in polygenic score portability

Jason Mares, Paul J. Rathouz, Michael Zietz, Olivia S. Smith et al.
Nature Communications
Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
article

Three open questions in polygenic score portability

Jason Mares, Paul J. Rathouz, Michael Zietz, Olivia S. Smith, Joyce Y. Wang, Neeka Lin, Arbel Harpak
article en

Abstract

The broad adoption of polygenic scores (PGS) is hindered by their limited portability to people that differ-in genetic ancestry or other characteristics-from the GWAS samples used to construct them. Here, we measure PGS prediction accuracy as a continuous function of individuals' genome-wide genetic dissimilarity to the GWAS sample (genetic distance). Our results highlight three gaps in our understanding of PGS portability. First, variation in individual-level prediction accuracy is only weakly predicted by genetic distance. In fact, it is explained comparably well by socioeconomic measures. Second, trends of portability vary across traits. For several immunity-related traits, prediction accuracy drops near zero even at intermediate genetic distances-potentially reflecting fast evolutionary turnover of genetic variants associated with immunity. Third, even qualitative trends of portability can depend on how we measure predictive performance. For instance, for type 2 diabetes, precision remains roughly constant, while recall surprisingly increases with genetic distance. Together, our results show that portability cannot be understood through global ancestry groupings alone. Other, understudied factors influence portability, including the specifics of trait evolution, genetic architecture, social context, and the construction of the PGS. Addressing these gaps can aid in the development of PGS and inform more equitable applications.

Nature CommunicationsVol. 17(1)
Columbia University (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
University of Texas at Austin, National Institutes of Health
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.