Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Dec 30;19(12):e0316378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316378

Bayesian polygenic risk estimation approach to nuclear families with discordant sib-pairs for myelomeningocele

Adolfo Aguayo-Gómez 1, Leonora Luna-Muñoz 1, Yevgeniya Svyryd 1, Luis Ángel Muñoz-Téllez 1, Osvaldo M Mutchinick 1,*
Editor: Yun Li2
PMCID: PMC11684611  PMID: 39774454

Abstract

Myelomeningocele (MMC) is the most severe and disabling form of spina bifida with chronic health multisystem complications and social and economic family and health systems burden. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the genetic risk estimate for MMC in a cohort of 203 Mexican nuclear families with discordant siblings for the defect. Utilizing a custom Illumina array, we analyzed 656 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of 395 candidate genes to identify a polygenic risk profile for MMC. Through a family-based analysis employing the transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) and Bayesian analysis, we assessed risk alleles transmission and calculated conditional probabilities estimating a polygenic risk for MMC. Our findings reveal significant associations of six genes related to neural tube closure (PSMB4, ATIC, DKK2, PSEN2, C2CD3, and PLCB2), showing differences in risk allele transmission between affected and unaffected siblings. Bayesian analysis identified changes in the risk profile after initiating folic acid fortification in Mexico, showing an evident decline in the conditional risk from 1/156 to 1/304 respectively. Despite the decline, this represents a 5.84-fold increase in risk before fortification and a 2.99-fold increase post-fortification compared to the baseline risk level (1/910). Our study highlights the advantage of incorporating a Bayesian analytical methodology in families with discordant sib-pairs, offering insights into the polygenic risk estimate for MMC and, most probably, for other congenital malformations.

Introduction

Myelomeningocele (MMC), the severe form of spina bifida, is the most common and disabling neural tube defects (NTDs) [1]. Worldwide prevalence varies from 0.5 to 10 per 1,000 pregnancies [2], having the Mexican population in the near past one of the world’s highest prevalences of NTD, with approximately 1/250 conceptions reaching 20 weeks of gestation [3], remaining high, despite a persisting decrease in the prevalence at birth over the last three decades. According to the 2019 data from our Registry and Epidemiological Surveillance of Congenital Malformations (RYVEMCE) program, the prevalence of MMC is 1/1,052 births [47]. The etiology of this birth defect is multifactorial, involving complex interactions of genetic and environmental risk factors [1,8], affecting the intrinsic mechanisms of neural tube closure during early embryonic development [9]. While over 200 NTD-causing genes for MMC and other NTDs were identified in mouse models, only a few candidate gene risk variants have been associated with MMC in humans [10]. Folic acid deficiency is critical in its occurrence among maternal-nutritional risk factors, as evidenced by a 72% reduction in risk recurrence (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.71) in subsequent pregnancies [11]. Other environmental factors, such as maternal obesity, diabetes, and exposure to certain medications (e.g., trimethoprim, valproic acid, and methotrexate), have also been associated with an increased risk for the defect [1214].

Family-based studies of candidate genes have been frequently used to investigate the genetic predisposition concerned with the etiology of spina bifida and other NTDs [15]. One advantage of family-based studies is their ability to control confounders such as population stratification; however, these studies require more resources and larger sample sizes than case-control designs [16]. Among nuclear family studies, the transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) is a methodology based on nuclear family trios involving the affected child and parents to investigate the relationship with gene risk variants [17]. This method and its variants have proven to be valuable in the context of candidate gene studies in complex diseases like MMC [18]. This test is also valuable for quartets, adding to the trio a non-affected (discordant) sib comparing the transmission from an informative mating of parents (at least one of them heterozygous) of a particular risk allele to the affected and unaffected sib [19,20]. So, if a risk allele is linked with the disease, it will be significantly more frequently transmitted to affected siblings than to the unaffected ones. This methodology has various advantages by inducing harmonization as discordant sibs share similar genetic backgrounds and environmental exposures, helping control the effect of parental health, maternal nutrition habits, and other environmental factors [2123]. Family-based studies on genetic variants associated with unspecified spina bifida and MMC usually included limited gene variants, focusing mainly on trios [10]. Recent research has revealed the involvement of genes in Hedgehog (Hh), Wnt, planar cell polarity (PCP), and ciliogenesis signaling pathways, as well as genes related to folate, glucose, fatty acids, and SOD1-SOD2 metabolism [2426].

Although before 2010, Greene et al. provided a comprehensive anthology of family-based studies in this field [10], to our knowledge, no studies on NTDs, mainly MMC, have employed the discordant sib-pairs approach within a family-based study framework. Despite recent progress focused on rare variants from exome [2730] or genome studies [3133] in spina bifida, the causes, mechanisms, and risks are not fully understood. Similarly, family-based candidate gene studies may bring more light to a better understanding the complex genetics causing NTDs. These methods can potentially identify the effect of multiple gene variants associated with MMC, providing valuable insights into their genetic predisposition.

Our study aimed to investigate the polygenic risk profile for MMC in a cohort of 203 informative Mexican nuclear families with discordant sibs for the defect by analyzing 656 gene variants of 395 candidate genes using a Bayesian analysis approach.

Methodology

Population studied

A sample of 203 discordant sib-pair-parents informative family quartets was selected from a multicenter population-based study of 1030 families with different family structures (trios, quartets, and duos). Each family comprised a child diagnosed with MMC, his/her unaffected sib, and their molecular-confirmed biological parents. Participating families came from 11 Teleton’s Infant Rehabilitation Centers from 11 different cities in 10 different states of México. The recruitment period was from September 5, 2013, to September 4, 2014. Pediatricians and geneticists confirmed MMC diagnosis through clinical and X-ray studies. Only isolated MMC cases were included in the studied sample. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents, and the Ethics and Research Committee and Research Committee approved the development of the study (GEN-340-13/15-2BIS).

Genotyping

Genotyping of known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was performed in extracted DNA from peripheral blood or oral mucosa samples following QIAamp® DNA mini kit protocols (Hilden, Germany) with a custom Illumina GoldenGate array (Illumina®, San Diego, CA) designed for the analysis of 768 SNPs, 656 from 395 candidate genes for neural tube defects.

Statistical analysis

Allele and genotype frequencies

We carried out the analysis of allelic and genotypic frequencies, including the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test, to assess if genotype frequencies deviated significantly (p<0.05) from it. Linkage disequilibrium between pairs of variants was searched using PLINK and missing genotype rates per individual, and variants filtering using specified threshold values to ensure data quality. We excluded variants or samples from subsequent analyses that significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p < 0.05), had a call rate below 98%, displayed a genotyping quality score below 90, or exhibited Mendelian errors.

Family-based analysis

Using the TDT, we first analyzed the presence or not of over-transmission of parental risk alleles to their MMC offspring group. Similarly, TDT analysis was run for healthy siblings to evaluate the frequency of whether the risk or wildtype allele variants were transmitted to the group of sibs. Additionally, we incorporate TDT analysis of discordant sib-pairs (TDT-DS) into the MMC familial quartets, employing the methodology outlined by Deng et al. [20]. Furthermore, McNemar’s test for the discordant sib-pairs was applied to informative families. We also used conditional logistic regression models for discordant sibling pairs (S1 Table). The analyses performed encompassed: 1) the analysis of TDT in trios of cases and siblings detecting 10 of 656 candidate genes allele variants in 10 different genes exhibiting significant differences for a nominal p-value of <0.05; and 2) evaluation of this selected group of variants for conditional probabilities estimations through Bayesian analysis.

Bayesian analysis

The Bayesian analysis compared the probability of risk allele variants in MMC cases and their unaffected siblings, incorporating prior known MMC prevalence and probabilistic modeling to estimate the risk associated with specific allele transmissions. The analysis also explored the joint effects of multiple variants, focusing on their combined effect on the congenital defect risk to occur. For this analysis, we considered an a priori probability (prevalence at birth) of isolated spina bifida of 1.098/1,000 or 1/910 births, according to RYVEMCE data from 1978 to 2002, and a prevalence of 0.562/1,000 or 1/1,779 births from 2003 to 2019, corresponding to the specific periods before (pre-FAFP) and after (post-FAFP) folic acid fortification in Mexico [34]. Further details on the Bayesian modeling approach, including the full Bayes’ Theorem framework used, parameter priors, and the assumptions regarding independent variant effects, are included in (S1 File).

Variant prioritization

The analyses were conducted by categorizing gene variants into missense and non-missense variants (intron and synonymous). Further analysis included all ten variants. This approach facilitated a thorough examination of the potential risk interactions among the different types of gene variants and the outcomes under investigation. Only one variant per gene was selected for analysis when two or more variants were present within a single gene. This approach aimed to prevent potential biases and reduce multicollinearity that could arise from analyzing multiple highly correlated variants within the same gene.

Furthermore, independent effects are assumed when combining the effects of multiple variants. This approach estimates the combined polygenic risk of an embryo developing MMC from a zygote exposed simultaneously to various risk variants resulting from the risk of allele transmissions to affected and non-affected respective siblings. The supplementary methods file shows more detailed descriptions of the variant prioritization procedure and the assumptions of independent variant effects. All the analyses were realized using PLINK (www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/), STATA 12 software packages, and the R program, in which a specific implementation for the analysis of these data on an interactive Shiny application was developed (https://www.rstudio.com/products/shiny/), (S2 and S3 Files).

Results

Risk gene variants detection

In the studied sample of 203 families, we identified genetic risk variants (GRV) in 10 genes MTHFR (c.677C>T), PSMB4 (c.701T>C), PSEN2 (c.261C>T), ATIC (c.347C>G), DKK2 (c.437G>A), MTRR (c.1049A>G), TFAP2A (c.46-1620A>G), C2CD3 (c.4923A>G), PLCB2 (c.1182C>T), and SLC7A6OS (c.134G>A). Of these, six were missense variants, three were synonymous, and one was intronic (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of the 10 included genetic variants analyzed.

GENE CHR LOCATION (hg19) RefSNP CONSEQUENCE EXON INTRON HGVSc HGVSp AMINO ACID CODON CHANGE
MTHFR 1 11856378 rs1801133 MISSENSE 4/11 - ENST00000376592.1:c.677C>T ENSP00000365777.1:p.Ala222Val A/V gCc/gTc
PSMB4 1 151374025 rs4603 MISSENSE 6/7 - ENST00000290541.7:c.701T>C ENSP00000290541.6:p.Ile234Thr I/T aTc/aCc
ATIC 2 216190020 rs2372536 MISSENSE 5/16 - ENST00000236959.9:c.347C>G ENSP00000236959.9:p.Thr116Ser T/S aCt/aGt
DKK2 4 107845794 rs17037102 MISSENSE 3/4 - ENST00000285311.3:c.437G>A ENSP00000285311.3:p.Arg146Gln R/Q cGg/cAg
MTRR 5 7885959 rs162036 MISSENSE 7/15 - ENST00000264668.2:c.1130A>G ENSP00000264668.2:p.Lys377Arg K/R aAg/aGg
SLC7A6OS 16 68344696 rs3803650 MISSENSE 1/5 - ENST00000263997.6:c.134G>A ENSP00000263997.5:p.Gly45Asp G/D gGt/gAt
PSEN2 1 227071525 rs1046240 SYNONYMOUS 5/13 - ENST00000366783.3:c.261C>T ENSP00000355747.3:p.His87 = H caC/caT
C2CD3 11 73785326 rs4453265 SYNONYMOUS 24/31 - ENST00000313663.7:c.4923A>G ENSP00000323339.7:p.Val1641 = V gtA/gtG
PLCB2 15 40590134 rs2229690 SYNONYMOUS 12/32 - ENST00000260402.3:c.1182C>T ENSP00000260402.3:p.Ser394 = S agC/agT
TFAP2A 6 10412188 rs1675414 INTRONIC - 1/6 ENST00000379604.2:c.46-1620A>G - - -

CHR, Chromosome; HGVSc, HGVS transcript nomenclature; HGVSp, HGVS protein nomenclature.

TDT analysis

Table 2 exhibits the results of the TDT trio analysis of the ten risk gene variants that showed significant statistical differences (SSD). The PSMB4 c.701T>C variant showed a significant excess of risk allele transmissions in MMC cases (OR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.01–1.92), p = 0.036, and significantly lower transmission of the risk allele in siblings (OR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.49–0.91), p = 0.010. For the remaining variants, the ORs in MMC cases ranged from 1.36 observed for the MTRR c.1049A>G variant to 1.81 for the PLCB2 c.1182C>T. Except for the PSMB4 variant, there were no other significant deviations in the expected allele transmission in the healthy siblings group.

Table 2. Results of Transmission Disequilibrium Test (TDT) analysis in MMC cases and healthy siblings in 203 family quartets.

GENE RefSNP DNA CHANGE GROUP IT TRANSMITTED ALLELES UNTRANSMITTED ALLELES OR (95% CI) P-value
Allele O E Allele O E
PSMB4 rs4603 c.701T>C MMC 165 C 96 82.5 T 69 82.5 1.39 (1.01–1.92) 0.0356*
SIBLINGS 165 C 66 82.5 T 99 82.5 0.67 (0.48–0.92) 0.0102*
ATIC rs2372536 c.347C>G MMC 173 G 106 86.5 C 67 86.5 1.58 (1.15–2.18) 0.0030*
SIBLINGS 173 G 80 86.5 C 93 86.5 0.86 (0.63–1.17) 0.3230
DKK2 rs17037102 c.437G>A MMC 172 A 101 86 G 71 86 1.42 (1.04–1.96) 0.0222*
SIBLINGS 172 A 79 86 G 93 86 0.85 (0.62–1.16) 0.2858
MTHFR rs1801133 c.677C>T MMC 178 T 107 89 C 71 89 1.51 (1.11–2.06) 0.0070*
SIBLINGS 178 T 93 89 C 85 89 1.09 (0.81–1.49) 0.5488
MTRR rs162036 c.1049A>G MMC 191 G 110 95.5 A 81 95.5 1.36 (1.01–1.83) 0.0359*
SIBLINGS 191 G 91 95.5 A 100 95.5 0.91 (0.68–1.22) 0.5149
SLC7A6OS rs3803650 c.134G>A MMC 166 A 96 83 G 70 83 1.37 (1.01–1.87) 0.0436
SIBLINGS 167 A 91 83.5 G 76 83.5 1.20 (0.88–1.62) 0.2460
PSEN2 rs1046240 c.261C>T MMC 178 G 103 89 A 75 89 1.37 (1.02–1.85) 0.0358*
SIBLINGS 178 G 82 89 A 96 89 0.85 (0.64–1.15) 0.2940
C2CD3 rs4453265 c.4923A>G MMC 189 G 110 94.5 A 79 94.5 1.39 (1.04–1.86) 0.0241*
SIBLINGS 189 G 88 94.5 A 101 94.5 0.87 (0.65–1.16) 0.3443
PLCB2 rs2229690 c.1182C>T MMC 132 G 85 66 A 47 66 1.81 (1.27–2.58) 0.0009*
SIBLINGS 132 G 56 66 A 76 66 0.74 (0.52–1.04) 0.0817
TFAP2A rs1675414 c.46-1620A>G MMC 180 A 108 90 G 72 90 1.50 (1.11–2.02) 0.0073*
SIBLINGS 184 A 93 92 G 91 92 1.02 (0.77–1.36) 0.8828

IT, Number of Informative Transmissions; O, Count of Observed Transmissions; E, Count of Expected Transmissions; OR (95% CI), Odds Ratio (calculated as the ratio of transmitted/not transmitted alleles) and 95% Confidence Intervals; χ2, Chi-Squared Test Value with one degree of freedom; P, P-Value (*<0.05).

The results of the TDT analysis, including the sib-pair model (Table 3), showed SSD in six gene variants, three missense, and three synonymous. The first three, PSMB4 (c.701T>C), ATIC (c.347C>G), and DKK2 (c.437G>A) with p-values of 0.001, 0.007, and 0.023, respectively. The three synonymous PLCB2 (c.1182C>T), PSEN2 (c.261C>T), and C2CD3 (c.4923A>G), with p-values of <0.001, 0.034, and 0.030, respectively. Although higher frequencies of risk allele transmission were observed in the MTHFR (c.677C>T), MTRR (c.1049A>G), SLC7A6OS (c.134G>A), and TFAP2A (C.46-1620A>G) gene variants, they did not reach SSD.

Table 3. Results of the Transmission Disequilibrium Test Analysis in Discordant Sibling Pairs (TDT-DS).

GENE RefSNP DNA Change IT MMC SIBLINGS OR (CI 95%) P-value
T NT T NT
PSMB4 rs4603 c.701T>C 165 96 69 66 99 2.09 (1.31–3.32) 0.001
ATIC rs2372536 c.347C>G 173 106 67 80 93 1.84 (1.17–2.89) 0.007
DKK2 rs17037102 c.437G>A 172 101 71 79 93 1.67 (1.07–2.63) 0.023
MTHFR rs1801133 c.677C>T 178 107 71 93 85 1.38 (0.89–2.14) 0.165
MTRR rs162036 c.1049A>G 191 110 81 91 100 1.49 (0.98–2.28) 0.065
SLC7A6OS rs3803650 c.134G>A 166 96 70 91 76 1.15 (0.73–1.81) 0.581
PSEN2 rs1046240 c.261C>T 178 103 75 82 96 1.61 (1.04–2.50) 0.034
C2CD3 rs4453265 c.4923A>G 189 110 79 88 101 1.60 (1.04–2.45) 0.030
PLCB2 rs2229690 c.1182C>T 132 85 47 56 76 2.45 (1.45–4.16) < 0.001
TFAP2A rs1675414 c.46-1620A>G 180 108 72 93 91 1.47 (0.95–2.27) 0.074

IT: Number of Informative Transmissions; T, Number of transmitted alleles; NT, Number of not transmitted alleles, OR (95% CI), Odds Ratio (calculated as the ratio of transmitted/not transmitted alleles), and 95% Confidence Intervals.

Bayesian analysis results

Conditional probabilities were also estimated for the pre-FAFP (1978–2002) and the post-FAFP (2003–2019). These periods were distinctively selected to correlate with the initiation of folic acid fortification in Mexico at the end of 2001. With these a priori probabilities, we estimated the individual variant and combined risk effect associated with the gene variants showing SSD with the TDT-DS (Table 3). These estimates were based on the transmitted and non-transmitted GRV frequencies to MMC cases and healthy siblings.

The individual and combined conditional probabilities results for the six variants displaying SSD in the TDT-DS analysis are exhibited in the S2 Table. These probabilities concern a zygote carrying the risk variants of these candidate genes. In one variant analysis, the PLCB2 gene synonymous variant c.1182C>T had the highest risk for MMC with a probability of 1/600 births (1.52 times more than the a priori probability of 1/910). However, in the second period (2003–2019), characterized by the folic acid fortification public health program, the same variant’s attributable probability of MMC decreased to 1/1172 (1.63 times lower than the initial a priori probability). Similarly, the missense variants of PSMB4, ATIC, and DKK2 showed increased individual probabilities of 1/626, 1/687, and 1/712 births during the pre-FAFP period. Comparatively, during the post-FAFP, the probabilities of MMC for these gene variants reduced the risk to practically half the pre-FAFP, 1/1223, 1/1343, and 1/1392, respectively (S2 Table).

In the same table, including the six genes, the three missense variants of plus the three synonymous ones of genes, the risk increases to 1/156 births during the pre-FAFP, representing 5.84 times more the a priori risk, being it reduced to 1/304 during the post-FAFP. Call the attention that although variants in genes MTHFR, MTRR, SLC7A6OS, and TFAP2A did not show SSD in the TDT-DS, they did show a trend to occur more frequently in MMC cases than in the siblings group. Furthermore, including these four gene variants to the first six, the Bayesian analysis depicted an increased risk for these ten variants in the pre-FAFP of 1/89 births, a 10.2-fold rise compared to the a priori risk of 1/910 births), while during the post-FAFP, it decreased to 1/174, still 5.2-fold higher than the prevalence at birth of 1/910 risk of the pre-FAFP.

A Sankey diagram (Fig 1) can be graphically appreciated, providing a visual perception of the conditional probability of MMC risk increases in the presence of different combinations of the six identified GRVs on the figure’s left side. The graph shows that the more risk variants are simultaneously present in a zygote, the greater the risk for an MMC embryo. Some specific gene risk variant combinations present higher hazards, which could be considered the genetic component of an individualized risk predisposition in families with that candidate gene risk array.

Fig 1. Sankey diagram.

Fig 1

The figure shows the Bayesian conditional probabilities of gene variant combinations associated with MMC. Each node represents a unique gene or gene combination, colored distinctly to differentiate between individual genes and combinations thereof. The flows between nodes are proportional to the estimated probabilities. This visualization summarizes the interplay between multiple genes and their variants, highlighting the statistically significant combinations identified in the TDT in families with MMC discordant sibling pairs (TDT-DS) analysis.

Discussion

Our results show that the analytical strategy implemented proved valuable for assessing complex genetic disease risk etiology like congenital malformations, allowing this strategy to estimate a series of polygenic risks for MMC in 203 nuclear families with discordant sib-pairs using a Bayesian analytical model [35], to the recognition of different predictable polygenic risk ratios. Given the shared genetic background and the intrauterine environmental similitudes among siblings, discordant pairs facilitate the control of potential confounders, particularly environmental factors, and population stratification.

We identified significant associations of six genes having specific characteristics linked to neural tube closure. PLCB2, involved in endocannabinoid signaling, has been linked to NTDs in mice [36]. PSMB4 participates in protein degradation and ATIC in purine biosynthesis. DKK2 acts in the Wnt signaling pathway regulating embryonic development. PSEN2 is essential for β-amyloid production and Notch signaling [37], and C2CD3 plays a fundamental role in centriole elongation and ciliogenesis [38,39], all functions related to NTD predisposition.

The Bayesian analysis of conditional probabilities, including the group of GRV resulting from TDT-DS analysis, revealed evident MMC occurrence risk changes during two distinct periods. In the initial pre-FAFP (1978–2002), the prevalence of MMC was 1/910 births (1,049 cases in 954,080 live births).[4,5,24] The polygenic combined risk for the six candidate gene variants that showed SSD reached a maximum likelihood of occurrence of 1/156 live births, 5.84 times higher risk for MMC than the RYVEMCE a priori live births in the whole (954,080) population surveyed. Additionally, the risk increases to 1/89, a 10.2-fold increase, if variants of the genes involved in folate metabolism, missense variants c.677C>T of MTHFR and 1049G of MTRR gene, and synonymous and intronic variants 134A and 46-1620G from SLC7A6OS and TFAP2A genes respectively are included in the Bayesian analysis. Interestingly, although during the fortification period of 2003–2019, the MMC’s prevalence decreased to 0.562/1,000 or 1/1,779 live births (149/265,016 live births), the risk for all these ten variants diminished half to 1/174 live births, yet remaining 5.23-fold increase from the a priori baseline risk of 1/910 live births.

We observed a distinctive behavior in transmitting risk alleles of the missense variant c.701T>C in the PSMB4 gene encoding a 20S proteasome β subunit within the 203 nuclear families. This variant showed a significant disequilibrium from the expected Mendelian transmission of the risk and wildtype alleles. In particular, it exhibited a significant over-transmission of the risk allele to MMC children but significant under-transmission of the risk allele to healthy siblings, with ORs of 1.39 (1.01–1.92) and 0.67 (0.48–0.92) respectively (Table 2). The essential roles in cell proteolytic degradation ensure the removal of misfolded and damaged proteins that participate in antigenic peptide reactions, suggesting that specific variants in the PSMB4 gene might affect protein degradation during neurogenesis, explaining in part present findings between protein abundance during embryogenesis [40].

The results of the TDT-DS analysis in discordant sib-pairs of variants in genes PSMB4 (c.701T>C), ATIC (c.347C>G), and DKK2 (c.437G>A) revealed a significant association with MMC, with a significant passing on the risk allele to the affected respect their healthy siblings. Also worthy of note is that no statistically significant higher frequency of risk allele transmissions of MTHFR, MTRR, and SLC7A6OS gene variants was found, suggesting that slight differences collaborate in defining a polygenic risk intensity for MMC depending on their function and population studied [3,41,42]. Furthermore, synonymous variants in PLCB2, PSEN2, and C2CD3 genes, which showed SSD, strengthen the importance of considering synonymous variants inclusion in the analysis of association studies, as they may have subtle functional impacts or be in linkage disequilibrium as genome positional markers, offering a further perspective for the interpretation of the estimated polygenic risk assessment.

The Bayesian analysis enables the estimation of risk ratios for various gene variant combinations, assessing the associated risks for the occurrence of a child with MMC, as shown in the S2 Table. The a priori probability established from the RYVEMCE data for isolated MMC from the pre- and post-folic acid fortification periods [4,5] facilitated improved adjustments of the probabilities for polygenic risk estimations. The Sankey diagram’s graphical representation describes the cumulative risk observed, highlighting how it increases as more gene risk variants contribute to the polygenic risk estimates. This approach underscores the variable MMC’s polygenic predisposition and environmental factors from one case to another, which contribute to a specific risk level profile in certain families. Interestingly, the observed temporal changes in estimated risks emphasize the modifier effect of folic acid diet fortification on the genetic MMC’s risk predisposition and the impact of public health preventative health measures. Continued research is essential to understand better how these genetic effects translate into very early embryo-developmental risk and how they can help in the custom-made prevention of MMC occurrence through appropriate and timely genetic counseling.

In conclusion, polygenic risk assessments through a model based on discordant sibling pairs using the Bayesian method of analysis allow us to identify variable degrees of polygenic risks for MMC in 203 families from 11 different regions of the country, giving an acceptable setting of the country population. In summary, our results using this methodology and Bayesian analysis acknowledge more precise and tailored genetic counseling and ad hoc prevention measures based on this genetic predisposition estimates approach than risk assessments founded on empirical data from other populations with much different ethnical and genetic structures than the Mexican population [43,44].

Supporting information

S1 Table. Results of McNemar’s test and conditional logistic regression in discordant sibling pairs for MMC.

(XLSX)

pone.0316378.s001.xlsx (13.2KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Bayesian polygenic MMC risk estimated considering the TDT-DS conditional probability.

(XLSX)

pone.0316378.s002.xlsx (16.3KB, xlsx)
S1 File. Supplementary Bayesian method description.

(DOCX)

pone.0316378.s003.docx (26.3KB, docx)
S2 File. Shiny application code.

Bayes probability calculator.

(R)

pone.0316378.s004.R (12.2KB, R)
S3 File. Example data.

CSV files for input into the Shiny application.

(CSV)

pone.0316378.s005.csv (619B, csv)

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the families whose collaboration made this study possible and dedicated physicians and students for their invaluable participation.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

OMM CONACYT-SALUD-2013-1-201547 CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA CONACYT.GOB.MX THE SPONSOR DID NOT PLAY ANY ROLE IN THE STUDY DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, DECISION TO PUBLISH, OR PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

References

  • 1.Copp AJ, Adzick NS, Chitty LS, Fletcher JM, Holmbeck GN, Shaw GM. Spina bifida. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2015;1: 15007. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Greene NDE, Copp AJ. Neural tube defects. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2014;37: 221–242. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mutchinick OM, López MA, Luna L, Waxman J, Babinsky VE. High prevalence of the thermolabile methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase variant in Mexico: a country with a very high prevalence of neural tube defects. Mol Genet Metab. 1999;68: 461–467. doi: 10.1006/mgme.1999.2939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mutchinick O, Lisker R, Babinski V. Programa mexicano de “Registro y vigilancia epidemiológica de malformaciones congénitas.” Salud Pública México. 1988;30: 88–100. Available: https://www.saludpublica.mx/index.php/spm/article/view/214 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Feldkamp ML, Bermejo-Sanchez E, Canfield MA, Zezza S, Mazzanti L, Bella A, et al. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research Annual Report. Rome: ICBDSR Centre; 2014. p. 101–107. Available: http://www.icbdsr.org/wp-content/annual_report/Report2014.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ortiz-Cruz G, Luna-Muñoz L, Arteaga-Vázquez J, Mutchinick OM. Isolated postaxial polydactyly: Epidemiologic characteristics from a multicenter birth defects study. Am J Med Genet A. 2019;179: 1432–1441. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arteaga-Vázquez J, Luna-Muñoz L, Morales-Suárez JJ, Mutchinick OM. OEIS complex: Prevalence, clinical, and epidemiologic findings in a multicenter Mexican birth defects surveillance program. Birth Defects Res. 2019;111: 666–671. doi: 10.1002/bdr2.1512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Detrait ER, George TM, Etchevers HC, Gilbert JR, Vekemans M, Speer MC. Human neural tube defects: developmental biology, epidemiology, and genetics. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005;27: 515–524. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2004.12.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Copp AJ, Greene NDE. Neural tube defects—disorders of neurulation and related embryonic processes. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2013;2: 213–227. doi: 10.1002/wdev.71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Greene NDE, Stanier P, Copp AJ. Genetics of human neural tube defects. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18: R113–129. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddp347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Prevention of neural tube defects: Results of the Medical Research Council Vitamin Study. The Lancet. 1991;338: 131–137. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90133-A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Finnell RH, Caiaffa CD, Kim S-E, Lei Y, Steele J, Cao X, et al. Gene Environment Interactions in the Etiology of Neural Tube Defects. Front Genet. 2021;12: 659612. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.659612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Waller DK, Shaw GM, Rasmussen SA, Hobbs CA, Canfield MA, Siega-Riz A-M, et al. Prepregnancy obesity as a risk factor for structural birth defects. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161: 745–750. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.8.745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yang P, Li X, Xu C, Eckert RL, Reece EA, Zielke HR, et al. Maternal hyperglycemia activates an ASK1-FoxO3a-caspase 8 pathway that leads to embryonic neural tube defects. Sci Signal. 2013;6: ra74. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2004020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Au KS, Ashley-Koch A, Northrup H. Epidemiologic and genetic aspects of spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2010;16: 6–15. doi: 10.1002/ddrr.93 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hecker J, Laird N, Lange C. A comparison of popular TDT-generalizations for family-based association analysis. Genet Epidemiol. 2019;43: 300–317. doi: 10.1002/gepi.22181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Spielman RS, McGinnis RE, Ewens WJ. Transmission test for linkage disequilibrium: the insulin gene region and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Am J Hum Genet. 1993;52: 506–516. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Boyles AL, Hammock P, Speer MC. Candidate gene analysis in human neural tube defects. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2005;135C: 9–23. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ewens WJ, Spielman RS. The transmission/disequilibrium test: history, subdivision, and admixture. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57: 455–464. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Deng H-W, Chen W-M, Recker RR. Transmission disequilibrium test with discordant sib pairs when parents are available. Hum Genet. 2002;110: 451–461. doi: 10.1007/s00439-002-0675-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Curtis D. Use of siblings as controls in case-control association studies. Ann Hum Genet. 1997;61: 319–333. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-1809.1998.6210089.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Grover VK, Cole DEC, Hamilton DC. Genotype-based association analysis using discordant pairs: a penetrance odds ratio approach. Ann Hum Genet. 2013;77: 137–146. doi: 10.1111/ahg.12002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Boehnke M, Langefeld CD. Genetic association mapping based on discordant sib pairs: the discordant-alleles test. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62: 950–961. doi: 10.1086/301787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ortiz-Cruz G, Aguayo-Gómez A, Luna-Muñoz L, Muñoz-Téllez LA, Mutchinick OM. Myelomeningocele genotype-phenotype correlation findings in cilia, HH, PCP, and WNT signaling pathways. Birth Defects Res. 2021;113: 371–381. doi: 10.1002/bdr2.1872 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Suazo J, Pardo R, Castillo S, Martin LM, Rojas F, Santos JL, et al. Family-based association study between SLC2A1, HK1, and LEPR polymorphisms with myelomeningocele in Chile. Reprod Sci Thousand Oaks Calif. 2013;20: 1207–1214. doi: 10.1177/1933719113477489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kase BA, Northrup H, Morrison AC, Davidson CM, Goiffon AM, Fletcher JM, et al. Association of copper-zinc superoxide dismutase (SOD1) and manganese superoxide dismutase (SOD2) genes with nonsyndromic myelomeningocele. Birt Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012;94: 762–769. doi: 10.1002/bdra.23065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Findley TO, Tenpenny JC, O’Byrne MR, Morrison AC, Hixson JE, Northrup H, et al. Mutations in folate transporter genes and risk for human myelomeningocele. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173: 2973–2984. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lemay P, De Marco P, Emond A, Spiegelman D, Dionne-Laporte A, Laurent S, et al. Rare deleterious variants in GRHL3 are associated with human spina bifida. Hum Mutat. 2017;38: 716–724. doi: 10.1002/humu.23214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hebert L, Hillman P, Baker C, Brown M, Ashley-Koch A, Hixson JE, et al. Burden of rare deleterious variants in WNT signaling genes among 511 myelomeningocele patients. PloS One. 2020;15: e0239083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Renard E, Chéry C, Oussalah A, Josse T, Perrin P, Tramoy D, et al. Exome sequencing of cases with neural tube defects identifies candidate genes involved in one-carbon/vitamin B12 metabolisms and Sonic Hedgehog pathway. Hum Genet. 2019;138: 703–713. doi: 10.1007/s00439-019-02015-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cao X, Tian T, Steele JW, Cabrera RM, Aguiar-Pulido V, Wadhwa S, et al. Loss of RAD9B impairs early neural development and contributes to the risk for human spina bifida. Hum Mutat. 2020;41: 786–799. doi: 10.1002/humu.23969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Han X, Cao X, Aguiar-Pulido V, Yang W, Karki M, Ramirez PAP, et al. CIC missense variants contribute to susceptibility for spina bifida. Hum Mutat. 2022;43: 2021–2032. doi: 10.1002/humu.24460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yang Y, Zhao S, Sun G, Chen F, Zhang T, Song J, et al. Genomic architecture of fetal central nervous system anomalies using whole-genome sequencing. NPJ Genomic Med. 2022;7: 31. doi: 10.1038/s41525-022-00301-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Orjuela MA, Mejia-Rodriguez F, Quezada AD, Sanchez-Pimienta TG, Shamah-Levy T, Romero-Rendón J, et al. Fortification of bakery and corn masa–based foods in Mexico and dietary intake of folic acid and folate in Mexican national survey data. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110: 1434–1448. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqz224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ogino S, Wilson RB. Bayesian Analysis and Risk Assessment in Genetic Counseling and Testing. J Mol Diagn JMD. 2004;6: 1–9. doi: 10.1016/S1525-1578(10)60484-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tian T, Dong H, Yin S, Liu M, Chen Y, Xiang K, et al. In Utero Exposure to Lead is Associated with Neural Tube Defects via Disturbing the Expression of Endocannabinoid Retrograde Signaling-Related Genes. Expo Health. 2023. doi: 10.1007/s12403-023-00564-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bai G, Chivatakarn O, Bonanomi D, Lettieri K, Franco L, Xia C, et al. Presenilin-dependent Receptor Processing is Required for Axon Guidance. Cell. 2011;144: 106–118. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.11.053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rai S, Leydier L, Sharma S, Katwala J, Sahu A. A quest for genetic causes underlying signaling pathways associated with neural tube defects. Front Pediatr. 2023;11: 1126209. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1126209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Balestra FR, Strnad P, Flückiger I, Gönczy P. Discovering Regulators of Centriole Biogenesis through siRNA-Based Functional Genomics in Human Cells. Dev Cell. 2013;25: 555–571. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Saritas-Yildirim B, Silva EM. The role of targeted protein degradation in early neural development. Genes N Y N 2000. 2014;52: 287–299. doi: 10.1002/dvg.22771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Contreras-Cubas C, Sánchez-Hernández BE, García-Ortiz H, Martínez-Hernández A, Barajas-Olmos F, Cid M, et al. Heterogenous Distribution of MTHFR Gene Variants among Mestizos and Diverse Amerindian Groups from Mexico. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0163248. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Guéant-Rodriguez R-M, Guéant J-L, Debard R, Thirion S, Hong LX, Bronowicki J-P, et al. Prevalence of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase 677T and 1298C alleles and folate status: a comparative study in Mexican, West African, and European populations2. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83: 701–707. doi: 10.1093/ajcn.83.3.701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sohail M, Palma-Martínez MJ, Chong AY, Quinto-Cortés CD, Barberena-Jonas C, Medina-Muñoz SG, et al. Mexican Biobank advances population and medical genomics of diverse ancestries. Nature. 2023;622: 775–783. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06560-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen S, Francioli LC, Goodrich JK, Collins RL, Kanai M, Wang Q, et al. A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes. Nature. 2024;625: 92–100. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06045-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yun Li

17 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-17409Bayesian Polygenic Risk Estimation Approach to Nuclear Families with Discordant Sib-Pairs for MyelomeningocelePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mutchinick,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yun Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, the authors have adopted a Bayesian approach to estimate polygenic risk

and identify the significant genes related to neural tube disorders (NTDs). While the topic

of the paper is significant, the paper should be better constructed and include more details

about the tests, mechanisms used, assumptions, modeling techniques etc. For example:

1. Section 2.3.3: Bayesian Analysis: Bayesian is an estimation approach which allows

one to incorporate prior knowledge about model parameters. It performs estimation

through posterior sampling. However, it still needs a particular model to work on.

The stats section in the paper lacks proper description of the exact model that was

used, the model parameters, what prior were assumed in the Bayesian analysis and

how posterior sampling was done.

2. Line 134: “The analysis were conducted by categorizing gene variants into missense

and non-missense..." - How was this categorization done?

3. “Independent effects are assumed when combining the effects of multiple variants" -

can the authors discuss the practicality of this assumption and what happens when it

is violated.

4. Bayesian Analysis Results: Can the authors provide some measures of model diagnostics and time complexity?

General comment: The authors should include more details and be specific about the

analysis performed for completion

Reviewer #2: The manuscript described a scientifically plausible protocol in qualifying polygenic risk among the target population.

The statistical analysis is performed in accordance with the aim of the study.

Yes.

Yes.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents a study that identifies a polygenic risk profile for Myelomeningocele in Mexican families, highlighting significant genetic associations and the impact of folic acid fortification on disease risk. The study employed a family-based analysis using the transmission disequilibrium test and Bayesian methods to examine 656 single nucleotide polymorphisms across 395 genes in 203 Mexican nuclear families with discordant siblings. The findings reveal that 150 genetic risk variants were identified in 10 genes, with TDT analysis highlighting significant statistical differences in allele transmission for ten variants. Further, Bayesian analysis shows a significant reduction in risk probabilities after the folic acid fortification.

This work advances our genetic understanding of MMC and could enhance prevention and screening strategies for MMC and other congenital malformations.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLos2-BayesianPolygenicRisk_Review.pdf

pone.0316378.s006.pdf (53.5KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 30;19(12):e0316378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316378.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Oct 2024

October 21, 2024

Rebuttal letter

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate all reviewers' insightful feedback, which allowed us to significantly improve the clarity and depth of our manuscript, "Bayesian Polygenic Risk Estimation Approach to Nuclear Families with Discordant Sib-pairs for Myelomeningocele."

In this rebuttal letter, we have carefully addressed all the reviewers' comments and made the corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Specifically, we have clarified the Bayesian framework used, expanded the methodological details, and provided further discussion on the assumptions and computational aspects of the analysis.

We hope the revised manuscript answers the reviewers' comments and suggestions.

Sincerely yours,

Osvaldo M. Mutchinick, MD, PhD

Professor of Medical Genetics

Chief, Department of Genetics

National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán

Vasco de Quiroga 15, Col. Belisario Domínguez, Tlalpan

14080, Mexico City, Mexico

Phone: (5255) 5487-0900, Ext. 2514/2515

Direct Phone: (5255) 5655-6138

E-mail: osvaldo@unam.mx

Response to Journal Requirements

We have carefully reviewed the journal's additional requirements and have addressed each of them as follows:

PLOS ONE Style Requirements

We have ensured that the revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.

Data Availability Statement

We confirm that our submission includes all the raw data required to replicate our study's results. These data are included within the manuscript and its "supporting Information files" to ensure full reproducibility. Should the reviewers or editors require additional data, we agree to provide them upon request.

Ethics Statement.

We have included a complete ethics statement in the 'Methods' section of the revised manuscript. This statement specifies the name of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee that approved the study, the written consent procedures, and any relevant waivers obtained. We hope these revisions meet the journal's requirements, and we remain available for any further clarifications.

Response to reviewers

Reviewer #1:

Observation 1. Section 2.3.3: Bayesian Analysis: Bayesian is an estimation approach which allows one to incorporate prior knowledge about model parameters. It performs estimation through posterior sampling. However, it still needs a particular model to work on. The stats section in the paper lacks proper description of the exact model that was used, the model parameters, what prior were assumed in the Bayesian analysis and how posterior sampling was done.

Response:

We have removed the section numbering from the document. The "Bayesian analysis" section, previously identified as 2.3.3, starts on line 126 of the revised manuscript.

We would like to clarify that our approach employs Bayesian principles to estimate the probability of neural tube defects (NTDs) based on allele transmission frequencies. However, it does not involve a formal Bayesian regression model or posterior sampling. Instead, we use a Bayesian probabilistic framework to adjust for known MMC prevalence, which acts as our prior and calculates posterior probabilities of disease given exposure to specific genetic variants.

Our model framework is based on Bayes' Theorem, where the prior probability is the population prevalence of MMC, and the likelihood is based on the observed allele frequencies in both MMC-affected and non-affected sibs. Specifically, the posterior probability of disease given exposure to a genetic variant is estimated using the following formula:

P("MMC" │"Exposed to TDT transmitted Variant i" )=(f_"MMC-sibs" ^((i) )×P("MMC" ))/(f_"MMC-sibs" ^((i) )×P("MMC" )+f_"Non-affected-sibs" ^((i) )×(1-P("MMC" )) )

Where:

- f_"MMC-sibs" ^((i) ): Is the frequency of the TDT-transmitted allele in MMC-affected sibs.

- f_"Non-affected-sibs" ^((i) ) : Is the frequency of the TDT transmitted allele in Non-affected sibs.

- P("MMC" ) ∶ Is the prevalence of MMC.

Observation 2. Line 134: "The analysis were conducted by categorizing gene variants into missense and non-missense..." - How was this categorization done?

Response:

We classified variants into two main categories: missense variants and non-missense variants. Missense variants are nucleotide changes that lead to amino acid substitutions, potentially altering protein function. Non-missense variants include synonymous variants, which do not change the amino acid sequence, and intronic variants, which occur in non-coding regions but may affect gene expression regulation. We used the Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor (VEP) for variant annotation. VEP provided comprehensive predictions on the functional impact of each variant, which we used for categorization. When multiple variants were identified within the same gene, we selected the variant with the highest predicted functional impact or most significantly associated with MMC. More detailed descriptions of the categorization process are provided in the supplementary file.

Observation 3. "Independent effects are assumed when combining the effects of multiple variants" - can the authors discuss the practicality of this assumption and what happens when it is violated.

Response:

The assumption of independent effects simplifies the calculation of polygenic risk by allowing us to combine the effects of multiple variants multiplicatively, as follows:

P("MMC" │"Exposed to variants i,j,…" )=(∏_k▒f_"MMC-sibs" ^((k) ) ×P("MMC" ))/(∏_k▒f_"MMC-sibs" ^((k) ) ×P("MMC" )+∏_k▒f_("Non-affected-sibs" )^((k) ) ×(1-P("MMC" )) )

This assumption holds when the variants are located in different genes or pathways and do not interact biologically. The above is reasonable for variants that are unlinked and functionally independent. However, when variants are in linkage disequilibrium or are part of the same biological pathway, this assumption may be violated, leading to biased estimates. In such cases, interactions between variants could amplify or suppress the individual effects, which our method does not capture. To mitigate this issue, we selected one variant per gene to minimize potential linkage effects and reduce multicollinearity, thus limiting the risk of confounding due to interactions between linked variants. We recognize that this approach may miss some gene-gene interactions and discuss this limitation.

Observation 4. Bayesian Analysis Results: Can the authors provide some measures of model diagnostics and time complexity?

Response:

Traditional convergence diagnostics are not applicable since we did not employ a formal Bayesian regression model with posterior sampling. Our approach involves direct calculation of posterior probabilities rather than iterative sampling. However, we can discuss the computational complexity of the analysis. The complexity is driven by the combinatorial nature of calculating probabilities for multiple variants. Given (n) variants, the number of combinations we need to evaluate is (2^n-1). For each combination, we compute the posterior probabilities. Time complexity grows exponentially with the number of variants, but we limit the number of variants per analysis for practical purposes to maintain computational feasibility. We also employed progressive computation in our Shiny application to provide real-time feedback on the calculations, improving user experience.

General comment: The authors should include more details and be specific about the analysis performed for completion.

Response:

We appreciate the feedback and revised the manuscript to include more details about the analysis, especially about the categorization and selection of variants, the probabilistic framework used for Bayesian analysis, and the assumptions of independence. Additionally, we will provide more specific information about the computational aspects of our methodology, including the limitations of the independent effects assumption and the steps we took to mitigate its potential violations. We hope that our responses clarify and address all comments, and we are open to further enriching our manuscript based on any additional suggestions.

Reviewer #2 and Reviewer #3: The authors sincerely appreciate positive comments on the study. We also thank all the reviewers for their time and thoughtful review of our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0316378.s007.docx (31.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yun Li

26 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-17409R1Bayesian Polygenic Risk Estimation Approach to Nuclear Families with Discordant Sib-Pairs for MyelomeningocelePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mutchinick,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses a few remaining minor points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yun Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have answered all questions and made necessary recommended modifications in the paper. Thank you for addressing the comments.

Reviewer #2: This revision addressed most previous comments, and the research was presented in a clear and informative manner. Some figures and tables, however, need to be adjusted in size for better readability (e.g. Line 163-164, the last column of Table 1 showing HGVSp extends out of the page; line 223, figure 1 is not there). Other issues mostly involve small grammar mistakes (e.g. Line 173, a period punctuation mark is missing) and long sentences that are generally acceptable.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Dec 30;19(12):e0316378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316378.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Nov 2024

November 28, 2024

Rebuttal letter

Dear Dr. Yun Li,

Academic Editor

Plos One

We sincerely appreciate the insightful feedback provided by all reviewers and regret the minor issues raised during the review process. We hope that we have fulfilled the journal's requirements through this carefully corrected revision of our manuscript, 'Bayesian Polygenic Risk Estimation Approach to Nuclear Families with Discordant Sib-pairs for Myelomeningocele'.

Sincerely yours,

Osvaldo M. Mutchinick, MD, PhD

Professor of Medical Genetics

Chief, Department of Genetics

National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán

Vasco de Quiroga 15, Col. Belisario Domínguez, Tlalpan

14080, Mexico City, Mexico

Phone: (5255) 5487-0900, Ext. 2514/2515

Direct Phone: (5255) 5655-6138

E-mail: osvaldo@unam.mx

Response to Journal Requirements

We have carefully reviewed the journal's additional requirements and have addressed each of them as follows:

1. Completeness and correctness of the reference list:

- We realized that references number 4 and 40 were duplicates. Reference 40 (Lines 416-418) was eliminated, and the annotation of the other references was corrected in the text (lines 246, 266, 273, and 299) and the final list of references (lines 419, 421, 425, 429, and 432).

- Reference 5 (lines 315-318) was corrected to meet the journal's guidelines.

- Reference 35 (lines 401-403): the DOI was added, and the hyperlink to the article was eliminated.

2. Revision of the cited articles:

- We reviewed all cited articles by searching in the Retraction Watch Database [1], CrossRef [2], Google Scholar [3], PubMed [4], and directly on the websites of the journals where the articles were published. None of the 44 references appeared retracted.

[1]. Retraction Watch. Retraction Watch Database [Internet]. New York: The Center for Scientific Integrity; c2024 [cited 2024 Nov 26]. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-database/

[2]. CrossRef. CrossRef Metadata Search [Internet]. Lynnfield: CrossRef; c2024 [cited 2024 Nov 26]. Available from: https://search.crossref.org/

[3] Google Scholar. Google Scholar [Internet]. Mountain View: Google; c2024 [cited 2024 Nov 26]. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/

[4] National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). PubMed [Internet]. Bethesda: U.S. National Library of Medicine; c2024 [cited 2024 Nov 26]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Response to reviewers

Reviewer #2:

Comment 6. "This revision addressed most previous comments, and the research was presented in a clear and informative manner. Some figures and tables, however, need to be adjusted in size for better readability (e.g. Line 163-164, the last column of Table 1 showing HGVSp extends out of the page; line 223, figure 1 is not there). Other issues mostly involve small grammar mistakes (e.g. Line 173, a period punctuation mark is missing) and long sentences that are generally acceptable."

Response:

- Regarding Table 1, we retained its original size as it was necessary to ensure clarity and readability, modifying the paper sheet size.

- Regarding Figure 1, the figure was not placed in the main manuscript, as stipulated in the journal's guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references):

"Do not include figures in the main manuscript file. Each figure must be prepared and submitted as an individual file. … Figure captions are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which the figure is cited. Figure files are uploaded separately..."

- To ensure compliance, we checked the figure using the PACE tool (https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/). The adjustments were as follows: the image file was flattened, dimensions were adjusted to 7.49 in W x 4.69 in H, and the TIF file was converted to a valid TIF format. Following these changes, we uploaded a new figure file.

- We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for grammatical errors and addressed several issues, including:

� Line 81: The word "off" was deleted

� Line 173: Final punctuation corrected.

� Line 181: Extra space removed before the number "0.001".

� Lines 118, 186, 195, 198, 212, 227, 244, 266, 433: "TDTDS" changed to "TDT-DS" for better clarity.

� S1 File and S2 Table: "TDTDS" changed to "TDT-DS"

� Lines 211, 238-241, 250-252, 258, 267, 268, 271, 273, 274: Gene names formatted in italics.

� Line 233: Space added after the word "model."

� Line 255: "increased" changed to "increase."

� Line 281: "pre" changed to "pre-."

� Line 296: "ad hoc" formatted in italics.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0316378.s008.docx (28.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Yun Li

11 Dec 2024

Bayesian Polygenic Risk Estimation Approach to Nuclear Families with Discordant Sib-Pairs for Myelomeningocele

PONE-D-24-17409R2

Dear Dr. Mutchinick,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yun Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yun Li

17 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-17409R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mutchinick,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yun Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Results of McNemar’s test and conditional logistic regression in discordant sibling pairs for MMC.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0316378.s001.xlsx (13.2KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Bayesian polygenic MMC risk estimated considering the TDT-DS conditional probability.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0316378.s002.xlsx (16.3KB, xlsx)
    S1 File. Supplementary Bayesian method description.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0316378.s003.docx (26.3KB, docx)
    S2 File. Shiny application code.

    Bayes probability calculator.

    (R)

    pone.0316378.s004.R (12.2KB, R)
    S3 File. Example data.

    CSV files for input into the Shiny application.

    (CSV)

    pone.0316378.s005.csv (619B, csv)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLos2-BayesianPolygenicRisk_Review.pdf

    pone.0316378.s006.pdf (53.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0316378.s007.docx (31.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0316378.s008.docx (28.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES