Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2025 Jun 13;21(6):e1011727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011727

Titin-Truncating variants predispose to dilated cardiomyopathy in populations genetically similar to african and european reference populations

John DePaolo 1, Marc R Bornstein 2, Renae Judy 1, Sarah Abramowitz 1, Shefali S Verma 3, Michael G Levin 2,4, Penn Medicine Biobank 1,, Zoltan Arany 2,, Scott M Damrauer 1,2,4,5,‡,*
Editor: Todd L Edwards6
PMCID: PMC12237270  PMID: 40512817

Abstract

The effect of high percentage spliced in (hiPSI) TTN truncating variants (TTNtvs) on risk of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) has historically been studied among population subgroups defined by genetic similarity to European reference populations. This has raised questions about the effect of TTNtvs in diverse populations, especially among individuals genetically similar to African reference populations. To determine the effect of TTNtvs on cardiovascular disease risk, we leveraged whole exome sequencing and electronic health record data from 43,731 Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) participants recruited from across the Penn Medicine healthcare system. Fraction of genetic similarity to the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G) African (AFR) reference population was determined using ADMIXTURE analysis. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association of hiPSI TTNtvs with prevalent DCM and atrial fibrillation (Afib), and linear regression was used to evaluate the association with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) either using dichotomized genetically similar population subgroup analysis or integrating ADMIXTURE population fraction. When individuals were assigned to population subgroups based on genetic similarity to the 1000G reference populations, hiPSI TTNtvs conferred significant risk of DCM among those genetically similar to the 1000G European (EUR) reference population (OR=6.12, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 4.33 to 8.65, P < 0.001) and individuals genetically similar to the AFR reference population (OR=3.44, 95% CI 1.97 to 5.99, P < 0.001). These results were consistent when considering the effect of change in fraction of similarity to the African reference population by ADMIXTURE as a continuous variable. Similar results were observed for the effect of TTNtvs on Afib and LVEF. Our findings demonstrate that TTNtvs are associated with increased risk of DCM, reduced LVEF, and Afib among a diverse cohort. There is no significant difference in effect of TTNtvs across fractions of similarity to the AFR reference population suggesting genetic background should not be considered when screening individuals for titin-related cardiovascular disease.

Author summary

Variants in several different genes have been identified as causal changes that predispose individuals to cardiovascular disease. Within the context of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), variants in the TTN gene (the gene that encodes the Titin protein which is the largest protein in the human body) are the most well-known genetic changes that contribute to an individual’s risk of DCM. However, investigations into the effect of TTN variants have suggested that there is a smaller effect among individuals genetically similar to the African reference populations. This has led some to consider how ancestry may impact the risk conferred by variants in TTN. However, more recently evidence has suggested that the discrepancy observed between different ancestries is related more to sample size and that most studies of genetic risk factors for DCM have been carried out in largely homogenous populations consisting primarily of individuals genetically similar to European reference populations. Here we observe that the effects of variants in TTN are similar across populations genetically similar to European and African reference populations either when individuals are dichotomized by population subgroup similarity or when genetic similarity is considered as a continuous variable.

Introduction

Titin, the protein encoded by the TTN gene, is the largest protein in the human body. It is found in the sarcomere where it spans from the Z-disk to the M-band, and is critical for sarcomere assembly, contraction and relaxation in striated cardiac muscle [1]. In populations largely composed of individuals genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G) [2] European reference population (EUR), heterozygous TTN truncating variants (TTNtvs) that encode for shortened forms of the titin protein have been identified as a common genetic cause of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). These TTNtv have been associated with 25% of familial cases of DCM, and 10–20% of sporadic cases [38]. Only variants located in exons that are highly likely to be spliced into adult cardiac TTN transcripts, known as high percentage spliced in (hiPSI) variants, are pathogenic [4]. hiPSI TTNtvs may cause DCM by reducing abundance of full-length TTN protein (haploinsufficiency) and/or through dominant negative effects [9,10].

We previously demonstrated the association of hiPSI TTNtvs with DCM exclusively in EUR individuals, but were unable to detect an association between hiPSI TTNtvs and DCM among Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) participants genetically similar to the 1000G African reference population (AFR; odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% CI 0.2 to 13.7, P = 0.57), or among AFR participants of the Jackson Heart Study (S1 Table) [8]. Recently, a case-control analysis of individuals with DCM demonstrated a statistically significant but attenuated effect of predicted loss-of-function (pLOF) variants in TTNamong AFR individuals compared to EUR individuals, potentially underscoring the limitations of applying genetic understanding of disease derived from a single ancestry group to diverse populations [11]. However, a separate study of hiPSI TTNtv carriers undertaken among All of Us participants showed a similar effect estimate among individuals genetically similar to either the EUR or AFR reference population (S1 Table) [12].

Common and rare genetic risk factors for disease have historically been analyzed among different populations separated by ancestry [1316]. This reflects the belief that the artificial grouping of individuals into genetically common cohorts allows improved assignment of genetic risk. However, greater understanding of genetic similarities between groups of individuals combined with the results of genetic admixture within different populations suggests that instead of strict dichotomization into groups, genetic ancestry is better thought of as a continuum of relative similarity [14].

Here we describe the assessment of DCM risk and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) conferred by hiPSI TTNtvs in a large, diverse biobank. We investigate this relationship either when individuals are stratified by “population group” according to their genetic similarity to one of the 1000G continental-level reference populations or using ADMIXTURE to treat genetic similarity as a continuous variable. Due to previous research identifying TTNtvs risk factors for atrial fibrillation (Afib) [1719], we performed a similar investigation into the link between TTNtvs and Afib.

Results

Study population

There were 43,731 participants in the analytic cohort (Table 1). The median age at analysis was 57 years (IQR: 45–69 years) and 21,907 (50%) were female. One percent (436 individuals) carried a hiPSI TTNtv, 1,112 individuals (2.5%) had a DCM diagnosis, and 4,920 individuals (11%) had an Afib diagnosis. There were 365 unique TTNtvs identified including 174 stop-gains, 44 frameshifting insertion-deletions, and 147 essential splice site variants.

Table 1. Clinical characteristics of individuals in the Penn Medicine Biobank with and without high percentage spliced-in TTN truncating variants.

Demographic hiPSI TTNtv (436) non-hiPSI TTNtv (43,295) P-value Difference
Age, median (IQR) 56 (45-67) 57 (45-69) 0.65
Female Sex, N (%) 184 (42%) 21,723 (50%) <0.001
“Genetically Similar” Population Group, N (%)
EUR 330 (75%) 29,626 (68%) 0.002
AFR 88 (20%) 11,048 (26%) 0.008
AMR 2 (0.4%) 564 (1.3%) 0.12
EAS 4 (0.9%) 466 (1.1%) 0.74
SAS 5 (1.1%) 554 (1.3%) 0.79
Unknown 7 (1.6%) 1,037 (2.4%) 0.28
Dilated Cardiomyopathy, N (%) 52 (12%) 1,060 (2.4%) <0.001
Ischemic Cardiomyopathy, N (%) 64 (15%) 5,305 (12%) 0.13
Atrial Fibrillation, N (%) 89 (20%) 4,831 (11%) <0.001

Genetic diversity analysis

The vast majority of understanding of the genetic risk of DCM, including that conferred by TTNtvs, was derived from investigation of cohorts primarily comprised of individuals genetically similar to the EUR reference population. To determine the extent of genetic diversity in this PMBB cohort, we performed principal component analysis of PMBB participants (Fig 1A-1C) using principal components (PC) derived from the continental-level reference populations (Fig 1D-1F). To further characterize population as a continuous variable, we performed ADMIXTURE analysis on all PMBB participants S1 Fig) which demonstrated the range of admixed population in PMBB. Notably, variances in percentage similarity to specific populations may overestimate overall fractions of similarity in this plot due to ADMIXTURE’s optimization algorithm terminating at a local maximum of the likelihood as described previously [20].

Fig 1. Principal component based clusters of individuals in the Penn Medicine Biobank compared to the continental-level clusters of 1000 Genomes Project individuals demonstrating the degree of overlap of different genetically similar groups.

Fig 1

A-C: Discrete labelling of the position of each individual within the Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) colored by genetically similar group based on 1000 Genomes Project (1000G) continental-level reference populations in a plot of (A) principal component (PC) 1 versus PC2, (B) PC2 versus PC3, and (C) PC1 versus PC3. D-F: Discrete labelling of the position of each 1000G reference panel individuals colored by continental region with PMBB individuals represented by grey dots in a plot of (D) PC1 versus PC2, (E) PC2 versus PC3, and (F) PC1 versus PC3.

Effect of TTNtvs on risk of DCM across EUR and AFR populations groups

We previously demonstrated a significant effect on DCM risk conferred by carrying TTNtvs among individuals genetically similar to the EUR reference population, however we could not detect an effect among individuals genetically similar to the AFR reference population [8]. In this updated study, encompassing a substantially larger number of participants, we evaluated the effect of TTNtvs among individuals separated into population groups to compare to our previous published results. Carrying a hiPSI TTNtv was associated with DCM among individuals genetically similar to the EUR and AFR reference populations (Fig 2A, EUR: OR=6.12, 95% CI 4.33 to 8.65, P < 0.001, AFR: OR=3.44, 95% CI 1.97 to 5.99, P < 0.001, Meta: OR=5.21, 95% CI 3.88 to 6.99, P < 0.001; heterogeneity χ2 = 2.97, P = 0.08, I2 = 66%). A Z-test showed no statistical difference between effects (P = 0.40). These results were similar when individuals with ischemic cardiomyopathy were excluded from the analysis, however there was increased evidence of heterogeneity in part because of the decreased sample size (S2 Fig).

Fig 2. Effect of TTN truncating variants on risk of dilated cardiomyopathy, stratified by genetic similarity to 1000 Genomes Project reference population and by fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE.

Fig 2

(A) Logistic regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs on risk of DCM stratified by genetic similarity to the EUR and AFR reference populations with heterogeneity statistics included. (B) Logistic regression analysis of the interaction between hiPSI TTNtv and fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE where the dark blue line is the interaction effect estimate across the continuum of fraction of AFR, the grey shaded area are the 95% CIs, and the red dashed line is OR = 1. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; EUR = European reference population; AFR = African reference population.

To further characterize the effect of TTNtvs across different populations groups, we modeled DCM as described by the interaction between hiPSI TTNtvs and proportion AFR by ADMIXTURE along with covariates including age, sex, and the first 5 genetic principal components (S2 Table). As shown in Fig 2B, the effect of hiPSI TTNtv on DCM risk is consistent across the spectrum of AFR fraction, and the hiPSI effect estimate was not significantly associated with the fraction of genetic similarity to AFR (P = 0.43). Notably, the 95% confidence intervals increase along with AFR fraction suggesting that analysis of this relationship remains limited by sample size among those with the highest proportion of AFR genetic similarity even with our increased cohort population. Taken together, these results suggest that TTNtvs are associated with DCM across EUR and AFR population groups, and specifically, there is no significant difference in hiPSI TTNtv effect on DCM risk related to genetic similarity to the AFR reference population either when considered as a dichotomized factor or continuous proportion.

Effect of TTNtvs on minimum LVEF across EUR and AFR populations groups

We next sought to determine the effect of hiPSI TTNtvs on minimum LVEF. Using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) data from all PMBB participants with LVEF values recorded, we found that carrying a hiPSI TTNtv was associated with a lower minimum LVEF among individuals genetically similar to the EUR and AFR reference populations (Fig 3A, EUR: Beta = -10.16%, 95% CI -12.80% to -7.52%, P < 0.001, AFR: Beta = -12.85%, 95% CI -18.32% to -7.37%, P < 0.001, Meta: Beta = -10.67%, 95% CI -13.04% to -8.29%, P < 0.001; heterogeneity χ2 = 0.75, P = 0.39, I2 = 0%). A Z-test showed no statistical difference between effects across population groups (P = 0.19). These results were similar when individuals with ischemic cardiomyopathy were excluded from the analysis (S3 Fig)

Fig 3. Effect of high percentage spliced in TTN truncating variant on minimum left ventricular ejection fraction reduction stratified by genetic similarity to 1000 Genomes Project reference population and by fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE.

Fig 3

(A) Linear regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs on risk of decreased minimum LVEF stratified by genetic similarity to the EUR and AFR reference populations with heterogeneity statistics included. (B) Linear regression analysis of the interaction between hiPSI TTNtv and fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE where the dark blue line is the interaction effect estimate across the continuum of fraction of AFR, the grey shaded area are the 95% CIs, and the red dashed line is Beta = 0. CI = confidence interval; EUR = European reference population; AFR = African reference population; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction.

We then modeled minimum LVEF as described by the interaction between hiPSI TTNtvs and proportion AFR by ADMIXTURE along with covariates including age, sex, and the first 5 genetic PCs (S3 Table). The effect estimate is not significantly associated with an interaction between hiPSI and AFR fraction (P = 0.32) (Fig 3B). Altogether, these results suggest that TTNtvs are associated with lower minimum LVEF across EUR and AFR population groups, and that this effect estimate is not impacted by a change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population.

Effect of TTNtvs on risk of atrial fibrillation across EUR and AFR populations groups

To test the effect of TTNtvs on risk of Afib, another cardiovascular diagnosis previously shown to associate with TTNtvs, we evaluated the effect of TTNtvs among individuals separated into population groups similar to above. Carrying a hiPSI TTNtv was associated with an increased risk of Afib among individuals genetically similar to the EUR and AFR reference populations with (S4A Fig, EUR: OR=2.08, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.72, P < 0.001, AFR: OR=2.01, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.88, P = 0.04, Meta: OR=2.07, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.65, P < 0.001; heterogeneity χ2 = 0.01, P = 0.93, I2 = 0%). A Z-test showed no statistical difference between effects across population groups (P = 0.96). These results were similar when individuals with ischemic cardiomyopathy were excluded from the analysis, though the effect estimates were somewhat attenuated (S4B Fig). Finally, we modeled Afib as described by the interaction between hiPSI TTNtvs and proportion AFR by ADMIXTURE along with covariates including age, sex, and the first 5 genetic PCs (S4 Table). S4C Fig demonstrates that the hiPSI effect estimate was not significantly associated with the fraction of genetic similarity to AFR (P = 0.22). Taken together, these results suggest that TTNtvs are associated with Afib across EUR and AFR population groups.

Discussion

In this project, we present our updated analysis of the effect of TTNtvs in the PMBB. Our observations demonstrated that hiPSI TTNtvs associated with increased risk of DCM, reduced minimum LVEF, and Afib across EUR and AFR population groups when individuals were dichotomized by genetic similarity to reference populations. These findings were supported by our results using ADMIXTURE analysis to show robust effects of TTNtvs independent of fraction of AFR population group similarity. Our findings support the conclusion that hiPSI TTNtvs affect risk of heritable cardiac disease to a similar magnitude across EUR and AFR population groups.

The question of whether and to what extent TTNtvs affect cardiovascular disease risk among individuals genetically similar to the AFR reference population provided an opportunity to reassess the role genetic background plays in how we approach individual risk in cardiovascular disease. Although genetic epidemiology studies have historically relied on arbitrary cutoffs to differentiate and label populations of similar ancestry, genetic ancestry is more appropriately considered as a continuum due to the degree of admixture even among similar populations [2123]. When proportion of AFR population similarity as determined by ADMIXTURE was utilized as a continuous variability in the present analysis, there was a consistent effect of hiPSI TTNtvs across the analytic cohort. This result reduces the emphasis placed on dichotomous genetic similarity especially in a substantially admixed population. Future evaluation of monogenic risk of cardiovascular disease may benefit from utilizing a similar approach to integrate population group analysis as a continuous variable, which may be more broadly applicable than analyses using genetically similar group dichotomization alone.

These results refine our previous findings that hiPSI TTNtvs are associated with DCM among individuals genetically similar to EUR reference populations in PMBB. Previously, we reported an OR of 18.7 (95% CI 9.1 to 39.4) for DCM among EUR individuals with hiPSI TTNtvs [8]. The range of effect estimates in our analysis of risk by fraction of AFR similarity, and the effect estimate for individuals genetically similar to EUR reference panels (OR=6.12, 95% CI 4.33 to 8.65, P < 0.001) was reduced compared to this prior estimate. The attenuation of effect we observed between our initial publication and the present study may reflect a winner’s curse in our initial study, where the initially-reported effect size tends to be over-estimated in genetic association studies [24]. However, the makeup of PMBB has also changed substantially in the past six years such that it is less enriched for cardiovascular disease (6.2% prevalence of DCM previously compared to 2.5% now) due to increasingly broad regional enrollment from centers of primary care which may have had a more meaningful impact on our current results.

Our findings also clarify the effect of hiPSI TTNtvs in individuals genetically similar to the AFR reference population. We previously identified no statistically significant effect among PMBB participants genetically similar to the AFR reference population [8]. This corroborated other evidence suggesting the possibility of differing effects across diverse populations [4]. Notably, our previous PMBB cohort included only 2,123 participants genetically similar to the AFR reference population, 20 of whom carried a hiPSI TTNtv, suggesting we may have been previously underpowered to identify an effect similar to what we presently report. We now identify a significant effect of hiPSI TTNtvs (OR=3.44, 95% CI 1.97 to 5.99, P < 0.001) in this population.

These findings are similar to a recently published manuscript demonstrating an equivalent effect of TTNtvs in individuals genetically similar to AFR and EUR reference populations in All of Us [12]. In their report, Shetty, et al, show that DCM, heart failure, and Afib risk associated with hiPSI TTNtvs were comparable between the population groups. Our work validates these findings in a secondary cohort providing additional support for the concept that the causal effect of pathogenic variants is consistent across populations. In contradistinction to the Shetty publication, however, our analyses also consider genetic diversity on a continuous scale. It is well recognized that human genetic diversity exists on a continuous spectrum and there is frequently as much diversity within genetically similar populations as there is between them [25]. The dichotomization of genetic diversity into subpopulations can be problematic as it fails to acknowledge this concept. Furthermore, the tendency to conflate genetic subpopulations with the social construct of race and ethnicity is problematic. Including measures of genetic diversity as a continuous covariate creates a more flexible analytic framework and avoids these pitfalls. In the current analysis it permits the firm conclusion that TTNtv effects DCM risk across EUR and AFR population groups.

Limitations

This work has some limitations. First, reliance on electronic health records to establish a diagnosis of DCM may have misclassified a subset of individuals. Second and similarly, TTEs were not interpreted by a uniform reader. Third, our cohort is also largely composed of EUR and AFR individuals, limiting generalizability to other genetically similar groups. Finally, we did not perform a centroid bias adjustment in the PMBB PC projection that may have resulted in under-adjustments for differences in population.

Conclusion

In summary, our updated analysis demonstrates a strong association between hiPSI TTNtvs and DCM across a range of genetic backgrounds, including subjects genetically similar to African reference population. These data suggest that recommendations for genetic testing and counseling should not differ between individuals genetically similar to EUR or AFR reference populations.

Methods

Ethics statement

This study utilizing PMBB data is approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (IRB) under protocol# 813913. Written consent was provided by all study participants.

Study population

The Penn Medicine BioBank is a genomic and precision medicine cohort comprising participants who receive care in the Penn Medicine health system and who consent to linkage of electronic health records with biospecimens, including 43,731 with DNA which has undergone whole exome sequencing (pmbb.med.upenn.edu). As previously described [8], DCM was defined either as ≥2 outpatient or ≥1 inpatient encounters with: 1) the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD10) diagnosis code of I42.0; or 2) ICD10 codes I42.8 or I42.9 or the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9) codes 425.4, 425.8, or 425.9, and mention of “dilated cardiomyopathy” or “DCM” in free text encounter notes. Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was defined as ≥2 outpatient or ≥1 inpatient encounters with ICD10 codes I24 or I25, or ICD9 codes 411 or 414. Afib was defined as ≥2 outpatient or ≥1 inpatient encounters with ICD10 codes I48, I48.1, I48.2, or I48.9, or ICD9 codes 427.2 or 427.21. A total of 9,020 individuals in PMBB had transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) data available that included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Genetic data

Whole exome sequencing was performed as previously described by Regeneron Genomics Center [26], Individual patient DNA samples were processed and sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 (Albany, NY, USA). WeCall variant caller (v2.0.0, https://github.com/Genomicsplc/wecall) was employed for sequence alignment (GRCh38), variant identification, and genotype assignment as previously described [27]. Quality control exclusions included sex errors, high rates of heterozygosity (D-statistic > 0.4), low sequence coverage (<85% of targeted bases achieving 20X coverage), and genetically identified sample duplicates. Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) were filtered for a read depth 7 and were retained if they either had at least one heterozygous variant genotype with an allele balance ratio 0.15, or a homozygous variant genotype [28]. Insertion-deletion variants (INDELs) were filtered for a read depth 10 and either a heterozygous variant genotype with an allele balance 0.20, or a homozygous variant genotype. Using PLINK (version 2.0) [29], we identified and excluded cryptically related individuals by randomly selecting one relative from each pair/group and excluding all others (pi-hat > 0.25) through identity by descent (IBD) analysis using the equation pi-hat = P(IBD = 2) + 0.5 × P(IBD = 1) where P(IBD = 2) is the probability of sharing two alleles identical by descent and P(IBD = 1) is the probability of sharing one allele identical by descent.

Population group descriptors

To compare the effect of TTNtvs across African (AFR) and European (EUR) populations, we conducted principal component analysis (PCA) on genetic data from PMBB participants using common variants. We employed the fastmode setting in smartpca (https://github.com/DReichLab/EIG) to generate 20 eigenvectors and projected PMBB participants onto HapMap3 (HM3) reference PC space. Population assignment utilized Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with the KernSmooth package (version 2.23-26) as previously described [27]. We constructed KDE models for each HM3 population using a 300 × 300 grid for both PC1/PC2 and PC3/PC4 dimensions. Bandwidth parameters were determined using the default “oversmoothed bandwidth selector” as described by Wand and Jones [30]. For the PC1/PC2 KDE, the bandwidths by HM3 population included GIH (Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas) = 0.007, CEU (Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection) = 0.008, ASW (African ancestry in Southwest USA) = 0.017, TSI (Toscans in Italy) = 0.001, MEX (Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California) = 0.006, and everything else = 0.008. For the PC3/4 KDE, the bandwidths by HM3 population included GIH = 0.0225, CEU = 0.004, ASW = 0.005, TSI = 0.004, MEX = 0.013, and everything else = 0.003. PMBB participants were assigned to population groups based on their highest likelihood scores relative to the HM3 reference populations which were subsequently mapped to 1000G continental-level reference populations. While this approach is imperfect as it reinforces the artificial discretization of genetic diversity, it is necessary to create groups of individuals that share a component of common genetic variation in order to facilitate the evaluation of TTNtvs in these diverse populations.

ADMIXTURE analysis

To quantify differences in genetic similarity to reference populations as a continuous variable among PMBB participants, proportional population group estimates were performed using ADMIXTURE [31]. ADMIXTURE calculates the proportion of genetic similarity to reference populations using genotype data. These data are then algorithmically assessed based on the number of assumed reference populations provided to produce a proportion for each individual in the analytic cohort. In the present analysis, we performed a supervised ADMIXTURE analysis where 1000G individuals were labeled with their respective corresponding continental-level population group. Learning from those labeled 1000G individuals, fractions of continental-level population similarity were then assigned to PMBB participants using ADMIXTURE default setting and k (latent populations) = 5.

TTN truncating variant calls

TTNtvs were filtered for minor allele frequency < 0.001 and selected based on predicted loss of function, truncating variants using ANNOVAR [32]. Splice site variants were screened for those affecting canonical donor or acceptor splice sites (two bases flanking either exon). Variants were considered hiPSI if percent spliced in was greater than 90% (PSI > 0.9) [4].

Statistical analysis

Logistic regression was employed to evaluate the association of hiPSI TTNtvs with prevalent DCM adjusting for age-at-analysis, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. We utilized Firth’s bias-reduced logistic regression to model this effect due to the relative rarity of events using the logistf package (version 1.26.0) in R [33]. Linear regression was used to assess the effect of hiPSI TTNtvs on minimum left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined prior or subsequent to enrollment, adjusting for age-at-analysis, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. Logistic and linear regression analyses of the effect of hiPSI TTNtvs were completely stratified by genetically similar population group, specifically EUR and AFR, and the population group hiPSI TTNtv effects were meta-analyzed using the inverse variance weighted method with fixed effects. Logistic and linear regression analyses of the effect of AFR proportion based on ADMIXTURE results, including the assessment of the interaction term between hiPSI TTNtv and AFR proportion, were not stratified by population group but only included EUR and AFR individuals included in the meta-analyzed analytic cohort. Plots for the interaction of hiPSI TTNtv and proportion AFR were created using the interplot (version 0.2.3) package. Interplot is a user-friendly way to visualize changes in one variable in a two-way interaction term that is conditional on the value of another included variable a single regression statement. Heterogeneity between effect estimates was evaluated using χ2, I2, and τ2 tests. A formal z-test was also performed to detect the difference between effect estimates across population groups. Statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.2.3). Code used in these analyses will be made publicly available at the time of publication.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Summary of results from previously published cohort studies on the association of TTN truncating variants and prevalent dilated cardiomyopathy diagnosis. hiPSI TTNtv = high percentage spliced in titin truncating variants; DCM = Dilated cardiomyopathy; EUR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project European reference population; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population; OR = odds ratio.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011727.s001.xlsx (9.5KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Effect of hiPSI TTN truncating variants, a 0.1 change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, and the interaction of the two covariates in logistic regression analysis of DCM risk accounting for age, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. hiPSI = high percentage spliced in; DCM = Dilated cardiomyopathy; UCB = upper confidence bound; LCB = lower confidence bound; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011727.s002.xlsx (9.1KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Effect of hiPSI TTN truncating variants, a 0.1 change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, and the interaction of the two covariates in linear regression analysis of change in LVEF accounting for age, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. hiPSI = high percentage spliced in; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; UCB = upper confidence bound; LCB = lower confidence bound; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011727.s003.xlsx (9.1KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Effect of hiPSI TTN truncating variants, a 0.1 change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, and the interaction of the two covariates in logistic regression analysis of Afib risk accounting for age, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. hiPSI = high percentage spliced in; Afib = Atrial fibrillation; UCB = upper confidence bound; LCB = lower confidence bound; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011727.s004.xlsx (9.1KB, xlsx)
S1 Fig. ADMIXTURE population group analysis in the Penn Medicine Biobank cohort.

Vertical bars represent individual participants with stacked color bars representing a particular individual’s fractional composition of 1000 Genomes Project continental-level reference population groups (AFR: African reference population; AMR: Americas reference population; EAS: east Asian reference population; EUR: European reference population, SAS: south Asian reference population).

(TIFF)

pgen.1011727.s005.tiff (1.2MB, tiff)
S2 Fig. Effect of high percentage spliced in titin truncating variant on risk of dilated cardiomyopathy diagnosis stratified by genetically similar group excluding those with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Logistic regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs and DCM diagnosis among individuals genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project European and African reference population, and meta-analyzed. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; EUR = individuals genetically similar to the European reference population; AFR = individuals genetically similar to the African reference population; ICM = ischemic cardiomyopathy.

(TIFF)

pgen.1011727.s006.tiff (24.2MB, tiff)
S3 Fig. Effect of high percentage spliced in titin truncating variant on minimum LVEF stratified by genetic similarity to 1000 Genomes Project reference population excluding those with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Linear regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs on risk of decreased minimum LVEF stratified by genetic similarity to the 1000G EUR and AFR reference populations. CI = confidence interval; EUR = individuals genetically similar to the European reference population; AFR = individuals genetically similar to the African reference population; ICM = ischemic cardiomyopathy.

(TIFF)

pgen.1011727.s007.tiff (20.7MB, tiff)
S4 Fig. Effect of TTN truncating variants on risk of atrial fibrillation, stratified by genetic similarity to 1000 Genomes Project reference population and by fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE.

Logistic regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs on risk of Afib stratified by genetic similarity to the 1000G EUR and AFR reference populations including (A) and excluding (B) individuals with ischemic cardiomyopathy with heterogeneity statistics included; (C) Logistic regression analysis of the interaction between hiPSI TTNtv and fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE where the dark blue line is the interaction effect estimate across the continuum of fraction of AFR, the grey shaded area are the 95% CIs, and the red dashed line is OR = 1. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; EUR = 1000G European reference population; AFR = 1000G African reference population; ICM = ischemic cardiomyopathy.

(TIF)

pgen.1011727.s008.tif (552.5KB, tif)
S1 Text. List of the Penn Medicine BioBank Banner team members with their contributions.

(DOCX)

pgen.1011727.s009.docx (15.2KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Penn Medicine BioBank (PMBB) for providing data and thank the patient-participants of Penn Medicine who consented to participate in this research program. We would also like to thank the Penn Medicine BioBank team and Regeneron Genetics Center for providing genetic variant data for analysis.

Data Availability

Individual-level data are not publicly available due to research participant privacy concerns; requests from accredited researchers for access to individual-level data relevant to this manuscript can be made by contacting biobank@upenn.edu

Funding Statement

J.D. is supported by the American Heart Association (23POST1011251, www.heart.org); this award includes salary support. M.G.L. received support from the Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (https://www.itmat.upenn.edu/), the NIH/NHLBI National Research Service Award postdoctoral fellowship which included salary support (T32HL007843, https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/), the Measey Foundation (https://www.measeyfoundation.org/), and the Doris Duke Foundation (https://www.dorisduke.org/). Z.A. is supported by the NIH/NHLBI (R01-HL152446, https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/) and the Department of Defense (W81XWH18-1-0503, https://cdmrp.health.mil/funding/), which contribute salary support. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Penn Medicine BioBank Banner team members:

Daniel J. Rader, Marylyn D. Ritchie, JoEllen Weaver, Nawar Naseer, Afiya Poindexter, Khadijah Hu-Sain, Yi-An Ko, Meghan Livingstone, Fred Vadivieso, Stephanie DerOhannessian, Teo Tran, Julia Stephanowski, Monica Zielinski, Ned Haubein, Joseph Dunn, Anurag Verma, Colleen Morse Kripke, Marjorie Risman, Yuki Bradford, Scott Dudek, Theodore Drivas.

The full list of the group team members with their contributions is provided in S1 Text.

References

  • 1.Freiburg A, Trombitas K, Hell W, Cazorla O, Fougerousse F, Centner T, et al. Series of exon-skipping events in the elastic spring region of titin as the structural basis for myofibrillar elastic diversity. Circ Res. 2000;86(11):1114–21. doi: 10.1161/01.res.86.11.1114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Abecasis GR, Auton A, Brooks LD, DePristo MA, Durbin RM, et al. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature. 2012;491(7422):56–65. doi: 10.1038/nature11632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Herman DS, Lam L, Taylor MRG, Wang L, Teekakirikul P, Christodoulou D, et al. Truncations of titin causing dilated cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):619–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Roberts AM, Ware JS, Herman DS, Schafer S, Baksi J, Bick AG, et al. Integrated allelic, transcriptional, and phenomic dissection of the cardiac effects of titin truncations in health and disease. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(270):270ra6. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3010134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Akinrinade O, Alastalo T-P, Koskenvuo JW. Relevance of truncating titin mutations in dilated cardiomyopathy. Clin Genet. 2016;90(1):49–54. doi: 10.1111/cge.12741 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Haas J, Frese KS, Peil B, Kloos W, Keller A, Nietsch R, et al. Atlas of the clinical genetics of human dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(18):1123–35a. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Akinrinade O, Ollila L, Vattulainen S, Tallila J, Gentile M, Salmenperä P, et al. Genetics and genotype-phenotype correlations in Finnish patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(34):2327–37. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Haggerty CM, Damrauer SM, Levin MG, Birtwell D, Carey DJ, Golden AM. Genomics-First Evaluation of Heart Disease Associated With Titin-Truncating Variants. Circulation. 2019;140(1):42–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McAfee Q, Chen CY, Yang Y, Caporizzo MA, Morley M, Babu A, et al. Truncated titin proteins in dilated cardiomyopathy. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13(618):eabd7287. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abd7287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McAfee Q, Caporizzo MA, Uchida K, Bedi KC, Margulies KB, Arany Z. Truncated titin protein in dilated cardiomyopathy incorporates into the sarcomere and transmits force. J Clin Invest. 2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jordan E, Kinnamon DD, Haas GJ, Hofmeyer M, Kransdorf E, Ewald GA, et al. Genetic Architecture of Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Individuals of African and European Ancestry. JAMA. 2023;330(5):432–41. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.11970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shetty NS, Pampana A, Patel N, Li P, Arora G, Arora P. High-proportion spliced-in titin truncating variants in African and European ancestry in the All of Us Research Program. Nature Cardiovascular Research. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Astore C, Sharma S, Nagpal S, NIDDK IBD Genetics Consortium, Cutler DJ, Rioux JD, et al. The role of admixture in the rare variant contribution to inflammatory bowel disease. Genome Med. 2023;15(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s13073-023-01244-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lewis ACF, Molina SJ, Appelbaum PS, Dauda B, Di Rienzo A, Fuentes A, et al. Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society. Science. 2022;376(6590):250–2. doi: 10.1126/science.abm7530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Busby GB, Kulm S, Bolli A, Kintzle J, Domenico PD, Bottà G. Ancestry-specific polygenic risk scores are risk enhancers for clinical cardiovascular disease assessments. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):7105. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42897-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ding Y, Hou K, Xu Z, Pimplaskar A, Petter E, Boulier K. Nature. 2023;618(7966):774–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ahlberg G, Refsgaard L, Lundegaard PR, Andreasen L, Ranthe MF, Linscheid N, et al. Rare truncating variants in the sarcomeric protein titin associate with familial and early-onset atrial fibrillation. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4316. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06618-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Corden B, Jarman J, Whiffin N, Tayal U, Buchan R, Sehmi J, et al. Association of Titin-Truncating Genetic Variants With Life-threatening Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy and Implanted Defibrillators. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(6):e196520. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Akhtar MM, Lorenzini M, Cicerchia M, Ochoa JP, Hey TM, Sabater Molina M, et al. Clinical Phenotypes and Prognosis of Dilated Cardiomyopathy Caused by Truncating Variants in the TTN Gene. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13(10):e006832. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liu C-C, Shringarpure S, Lange K, Novembre J. Exploring Population Structure with Admixture Models and Principal Component Analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 2020;2090:67–86. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0199-0_4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mathias RA, Taub MA, Gignoux CR, Fu W, Musharoff S, O’Connor TD. A continuum of admixture in the Western Hemisphere revealed by the African Diaspora genome. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tishkoff SA, Reed FA, Friedlaender FR, Ehret C, Ranciaro A, Froment A, et al. The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans. Science. 2009;324(5930):1035–44. doi: 10.1126/science.1172257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gouveia MH, Borda V, Leal TP, Moreira RG, Bergen AW, Kehdy FSG, et al. Origins, Admixture Dynamics, and Homogenization of the African Gene Pool in the Americas. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37(6):1647–56. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lohmueller KE, Pearce CL, Pike M, Lander ES, Hirschhorn JN. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease. Nat Genet. 2003;33(2):177–82. doi: 10.1038/ng1071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. Using population descriptors in genetics and genomics research: A new framework for an evolving field. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2023. p. 240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dewey FE, Gusarova V, O’Dushlaine C, Gottesman O, Trejos J, Hunt C, et al. Inactivating Variants in ANGPTL4 and Risk of Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(12):1123–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Backman JD, Li AH, Marcketta A, Sun D, Mbatchou J, Kessler MD, et al. Exome sequencing and analysis of 454,787 UK Biobank participants. Nature. 2021;599(7886):628–34. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04103-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Verma A, Damrauer SM, Naseer N, Weaver J, Kripke CM, Guare L. The Penn Medicine BioBank: Towards a Genomics-Enabled Learning Healthcare System to Accelerate Precision Medicine in a Diverse Population. J Pers Med. 2022;12(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(3):559–75. doi: 10.1086/519795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wand MPaJ CM. Kernel Smoothing. London: Chapman and Hall; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 2009;19(9):1655–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(16):e164. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Puhr R, Heinze G, Nold M, Lusa L, Geroldinger A. Firth’s logistic regression with rare events: accurate effect estimates and predictions? Stat Med. 2017;36(14):2302–17. doi: 10.1002/sim.7273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Genet. 2025 Jun 13;21(6):e1011727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011727.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0


Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

1 Feb 2024

Decision Letter 0

Xiaofeng Zhu

Dear Dr Damrauer,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'Titin-Truncating variants Predispose to Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Diverse Populations' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some substantial concerns about the current manuscript. Based on the reviews, we will not be able to accept this version of the manuscript, but we would be willing to review a much-revised version. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

Should you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration here, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. We will also require a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

If you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration at PLOS Genetics, please aim to resubmit within the next 60 days, unless it will take extra time to address the concerns of the reviewers, in which case we would appreciate an expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments are included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist .

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please be aware that our data availability policy  requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine  (PACE) digital diagnostic tool.  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check , powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, log into your Editorial Manager account and select the option 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely,

Todd L. Edwards

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Xiaofeng Zhu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Summary

======

DePaolo and colleagues used data from the population-based Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) to evaluate whether the effect of carrying a high percent spliced in (hiPSI) TTN truncating variant (TTNtv) on the risk of prevalent dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and related phenotypes varied across populations. They found that the effect of hiPSI TTNtvs on DCM risk, atrial fibrillation (Afib) risk, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar across bins of genetic distance (GD), the metric that they chose to measure dissimilarity from European ancestry (EUR). Importantly, they also revised their conclusion in a prior study regarding the lack of effect of TTNtvs in African ancestry (AFR) populations, finding that hiPSI TTNtvs were associated with increased DCM and Afib risk and lower LVEF in AFR populations. While the results of this study are important, there are methodological issues that should be addressed, including undesirable properties of their GD metric, some technical statistical issues, and incomplete description of some methods. A revision addressing all issues below in which the GD metric was replaced or supplemented with continuous non-European ancestry proportions would certainly be worthy of further consideration.

Specific Comments

============

- The authors should provide a reference detailing the design and comparative performance of the WeCall variant caller and explain why this was chosen over more standard pipelines based on the actively developed GATK software.

- All statistical techniques described assume that individuals are unrelated, but there is no mention of whether this was verified. Please describe how cryptic relatedness between PMBB participants was assessed and addressed in analysis.

- I would argue that the GD metric of Euclidean distance from the EUR centroid does not provide a relevant measure for this application. In particular, individuals in completely different regions of the ancestry PC space could have identical Euclidean distance from the EUR centroid, which means that individuals in genetically dissimilar populations (e.g., AFR and SAS) could be indistinguishable on this metric. Because individuals from dissimilar populations that may have dissimilar allele frequencies and disease risks can fall into the same grouping, this metric cannot provide an effective adjustment for population stratification without additional adjustment for other PCs. This lumping property also means that the metric does not allow estimation of interpretable ancestry-specific effects. Supplemental Table 1 and Supplemental Figure 1 show that this is more than a theoretical problem; ancestrally diverse groups were clearly lumped into the same GD category. Given these limitations, it is not entirely clear why the authors chose this metric instead of the more interpretable metric of non-European ancestry proportions (e.g., AFR, SAS, EAS, Native American) obtained from a model such as ADMIXTURE or directly from PCA. With these, the authors could determine whether and how an increasing proportion of each non-European ancestry modified the effect of carrying a hiPSI TTNtv, similar to the approach in reference 10. As this alternative approach would allow evaluation of the effect of ancestry on a continuum while minimizing residual confounding and enhancing interpretability, the authors should report results using it.

- The authors should include a description of how they defined “genetically similar” groups.

- It would be helpful to describe the logistic regression specifications used in detail. Based on the current descriptions, I have some concerns:

1) It appears that a model including age, sex, and TTNtv carrier status was fit separately in each GD bin and the results meta-analyzed. This approach is suboptimal for two reasons. First, the number of TTNtv carriers in each bin is likely small enough to warrant use of the Firth bias correction. Second, even if the Firth correction is unnecessary, the entire model could be fit with a single logistic regression in which intercept, age, sex, and TTNtv carrier status were interacted with GD bin, which would allow use of more reliable likelihood ratio tests and profile likelihood confidence intervals rather than the Wald-based procedures used for meta-analysis. Furthermore, using a single regression would allow model simplifications such as common sex and age effects that could potentially increase power.

2) The functional form for age in the model should be described and justified.

3) The estimated odds ratios presented in Supplemental Table 2 are not interpretable because they refer to a 1-unit change in GD, which is not possible as this variable has support on [0, 0.08] based on Figure 1. The odds ratios presented would be more informative if they corresponded to a 0.01-unit change.

- For the linear regression with LVEF, it is unclear why meta-analysis was used instead of the more standard approach of fitting a single model in which intercept, age, sex, and TTNtv were interacted with GD bin. As the individual-level data are available, I would recommend the latter analysis approach to facilitate model simplification and more flexible inference.

- The above comments regarding meta-analysis versus standard generalized linear model inference also apply to the genetically similar group analysis.

- Please describe the statistical tests used to produce the p-values in Table 1.

Reviewer #2: Comments are uploaded as an attachment.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy , and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: No:  The authors state that their data cannot be made publicly available as they contain sensitive information on human subjects, which is reasonable. The authors also state that they will make the data available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Reviewer #2: No: 

**********

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

pgen.1011727.s010.docx (28.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Xiaofeng Zhu

PGENETICS-D-24-00140R1

Titin-Truncating variants Predispose to Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Diverse Populations

PLOS Genetics

Dear Dr. Damrauer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Genetics. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Genetics'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 within 60 days Feb 18 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 plosgenetics@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Todd L. Edwards

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Xiaofeng Zhu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Journal Requirements:

1) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "Individual-level data are not publicly available due to research participant privacy concerns; requests from accredited researchers for access to individual-level data relevant to this manuscript can be made by contacting biobank@upenn.edu"

 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.

2) Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Summary

======

DePaolo and colleagues have submitted a responsive and thorough revision that completely addresses prior reviewer comments regarding their genetic distance metric. That the inferences remain unchanged is highly encouraging. While I applaud their efforts thus far, there are remaining issues that should be addressed to ensure that this potentially important work meets a high but attainable standard of rigor. I would find a revision in which these are addressed to be a compelling publication.

Major Issues

========

- Pi_hat is usually used to denote an estimate of the proportion of alleles shared IBD (pi), which is twice the kinship coefficient (phi). The kinship coefficient for first cousins is 0.0625, so pi for first cousins is 0.125, not 0.25. A pi_hat threshold of 0.25 would therefore not exclude first cousins or other third-degree relatives, which may not be stringent enough to eliminate problems due to cryptic relatedness. Moreover, pi_hat (= 2 * phi_hat) is an estimated IBD probability that will vary about its expectation of 0.125 for first cousins, potentially ranging as low as ~0.088 (see 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq559). The threshold for unrelated in this publication is phi_hat<0.044 (pi_hat<0.088); others (10.1002/gepi.21896) have used phi_hat<0.025 (pi_hat<0.05) for identifying unrelated individuals. Details on how this threshold was applied to select an unrelated subset should also be provided (e.g., PLINK algorithm). Finally, methods for obtaining an estimate of pi_hat and phi_hat should be described. Given the diverse nature of this sample, methods that account for distant relatedness due to ancestry (e.g., KING, PC-Relate) would be preferable, although methods assuming a sample from a single population would tend to overestimate relatedness (10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.11.022) and exclude unrelated individuals rather than underestimate it and include related ones.

- The description of the methods for population group descriptors is not sufficiently detailed. Kernel density estimation (KDE) is a very broad set of techniques in statistics involving many tuning parameters (e.g., bandwidth) that should be described. Presumably, KDE was used to estimate a multidimensional density for each 1000G reference population over the PC space, and the number of PCs considered (i.e., dimension of this density) should be clearly stated. How the resulting densities were used to assign a new individual to a population group should also be clearly stated. Was this simply the population for which that individual had highest density? Or was a Bayes classifier with non-uniform prior weights used? Without these details, it is difficult to evaluate the reasonableness of the overall approach for assigning individuals to ancestry groups, although the broad description seems to be on the right track and the assignments in Figure 1A-C look reasonable relative to the reference.

- Several details regarding the ADMIXTURE analysis are missing. Were models with different numbers of latent populations (K) fit and compared (10.1007/978-1-0716-0199-0_4)? Were multiple runs from different starting points for each K performed and compared as recommended (10.1007/978-1-0716-0199-0_4 and 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw327)? How was the optimal K chosen?

- While use of age at enrollment is reasonable given the constraints of the data, it does require clarification of a few items in the outcome definitions. First, did diagnostic criteria for DCM and AFib consider only encounters prior to enrollment? This would be ideal as the logistic regression model then represents an implicit proportional odds survival model for DCM/Afib risk based on current status (at enrollment) data (see 10.1201/b16248, chapter 22). Second, over what period was the minimum LVEF determined, and how was this period related to age at enrollment?

- The authors should clarify in the manuscript that regressions used for the ancestry group analysis are completely stratified with the ancestry group-specific hiPSI TTNtv effects analyzed and combined using meta-analysis (although see my comments below about the issues with continued use of this approach). At the same time, the authors should clarify in the manuscript that the regressions including the interaction term with the global AFR proportion are not stratified. This entails additional assumptions regarding common effects of age at enrollment, sex, and ancestry PCs in AFR and non-AFR ancestries, so these are not different parameterizations of the ancestry-specific effect in the same model fit to the same sample. To obtain that, the authors would need to replace the AFR global ancestry proportion with a binary AFR = 1/EUR = 0 indicator and limit the analysis to individuals in just the AFR and EUR groups. All meta-analytic tests of heterogeneity and the combined TTNtv effect could then be obtained from nested models with and without the interaction.

- If groups other than AFR and EUR are included in the model for the global ancestry proportion interaction, the TTNtv effect should also be allowed to vary by the proportions of other non-EUR global ancestries. Not doing so introduces a problem similar to the genetic distance metric in the last version of the manuscript, except now individuals who are nearly completely EUR, SAS, AMR, or EAS are all lumped into the reference group with the same assumed TTNtv effect. Figure 1A-C suggests a fair amount of admixture along other axes of ancestry, so there could be enough variation to include other non-EUR global ancestry proportions that vary in the sample (e.g., SAS, EAS, AMR) and their interactions with the TTNtv effect, which would solve the problem. Otherwise, limiting this analysis to the same combined sample as the meta-analysis of EUR and AFR groups would be a reasonable approach.

- The justification for not using Firth logistic regression in response to Reviewer 2’s comment is not entirely convincing. Prior work has shown that performance issues may arise with minor allele count <400 (10.1002/gepi.21742), a condition that applies here in the stratified meta-analysis. Using Firth correction also would not affect comparability with prior work if quasi-complete or complete separation were not an issue in this or any of these other studies. I agree with Reviewer 2 that using Firth logistic regression (and penalized likelihood inference on a unified model, as per my prior comments) would greatly increase confidence in the findings of this study with a relatively rare outcome and fairly low minor allele count.

Minor Issues

========

- The analysis in reference 10 relating to the effect of TTNtvs on DCM risk appears to have been case-control, not cross-sectional. This should be corrected.

- It would be helpful to also include a reference the cited UKB paper to show that WeCall has been widely employed.

- It would be helpful to clearly describe in the manuscript whether the PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses were done on pooled 1000G and PMBB samples or whether PMBB samples were projected onto PC and ancestry spaces learned solely from 1000G samples. The response to reviewers seems to suggest that projection was used for PCA, in which case the method for centroid bias adjustment (10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa152), if any, should be described.

- The ADMIXTURE plot in Supplemental Figure 1 raises some concerns. First, the global ancestry proportions do not appear to stack to 1 for a number of individuals. Second, it would be useful to see a plot for the 1000G reference individuals to inform the labeling used for latent subpopulations. This is especially relevant because the ACB, ASW, and AMR reference samples are representative of variable recent European-African or European-Native American(-African) admixture events in the Americas.

- The conclusions in this manuscript do not apply to diverse populations such as AMR, SAS, or EAS, as appropriately noted by the authors in the limitations. However, the authors should limit the inferences to EUR and AFR (rather than “diverse populations”) more generally throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The comments are provided as an attachment.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy , and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: No:  The authors state that their data cannot be made publicly available as they contain sensitive information on human subjects, which is reasonable. The authors also state that requests from accredited researchers for access to individual-level data relevant to this manuscript can be made by contacting biobank@upenn.edu and have committed to making the code publicly available upon publication.

Reviewer #2: No:  Some data are not likely to be shared, but some details on the analysis are not provided (although the authors promised to be publicly available)

**********

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

[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.]

Figure resubmission:

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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosGen_review_Nov2024.docx

pgen.1011727.s012.docx (20.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Xiaofeng Zhu

PGENETICS-D-24-00140R2

Titin-Truncating variants Predispose to Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Populations Genetically Similar to African and European Reference Populations

PLOS Genetics

Dear Dr. Damrauer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Genetics. Both reviewers suggested that the manuscript is acceptable after minor a revision. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We expect further round of review may not be necessary but we also believe a revision is needed, given the concerns raised by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Apr 27 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 plosgenetics@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Todd L. Edwards

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Xiaofeng Zhu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Additional Editor Comments:

Please see the attached comments from Reviewer 2 and make those changes to the paper prior to publication.

Journal Requirements:

In the online submission form, you indicated that "Individual-level data are not publicly available due to research participant privacy concerns; requests from accredited researchers for access to individual-level data relevant to this manuscript can be made by contacting biobank@upenn.edu". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either

1. In a public repository

2. Within the manuscript itself

3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: DePaolo and colleagues have submitted a responsive and thorough revision that addresses nearly all of my comments on the prior revision. All issues itemized below should be addressable with minor changes to the manuscript.

- Reviewer 1, Comment 1: The authors should provide the PLINK version used (perhaps it was 1.07 based on the reference) and specify the method for selecting an unrelated subset (e.g., randomly select one relative from each pair).

- Reviewer 1, Comment 2: While the additional details are helpful, the authors should also provide information on the KDE software implementation, kernel type, and bandwidth selection technique.

- Reviewer 1, Comment 5: The addition in lines 379-85 mostly addresses the comment, but I believe that this clarification should apply to both logistic *and linear* regressions. Please make that correction. Also, please specify the meta-analytic method used (e.g., inverse variance weighted fixed effects).

- Reviewer 1, Comment 8: This still needs to be corrected. While the study was cross-sectional with respect to the probands, all of whom had DCM, the supplemental results on the association of TTNtvs with DCM risk in eAppendix 2 were based on a comparison of probands (cases) to *external population controls* from 1000 Genomes. As all probands in the cross-sectional sample analyzed in the main text had DCM, there would be no way to evaluate the association of TTNtvs with DCM risk in just probands; doing so would require pairing external controls with these cases, as in eAppendix 2. The authors of reference 11 also make explicit references to the case-control nature of the TTNtv analysis and its reliance on external controls in eAppendix 2 with statements such as:

-- “The odds of harboring a TTN pLOF variant were modeled as a function of case status (DCM proband or 1000 Genomes control)…”

-- “This retrospective formulation of the logistic regression was chosen because it more closely reflects the sampling design, which was stratified on both case status and ancestry so that only whether an individual was found to harbor a TTN pLOF variant was an unrestricted random quantity.”

- Reviewer 1, Comment 10: The lack of centroid bias adjustment in PC projection may result in under-adjustment for ancestry differences (10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa152, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa520), although shrinkage may be relatively small for the top 4-5 PCs when using the entire 1000 Genomes reference (10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa152, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa520). I would suggest that this be included as a potential limitation mitigated by the likelihood that shrinkage was small based on data in the references above.

- Reviewer 1, Comment 11: The corrected ADMIXTURE plot seems to indicate a degree of genetic similarity with SAS reference populations much higher than that reported by the authors in Table 1 and elsewhere for the entire cohort (10.3390/jpm12121974), all concentrated within individuals with low genetic similarity to AFR. The source of this phenomenon should be investigated and explained to the reader. One possible explanation is that ADMIXTURE's optimization algorithm terminated at a local maximum of the likelihood; the authors should try rerunning ADMIXTURE at least 10 times using different seeds and comparing the results to confirm that this is indeed a global maximum, as recommended in my prior comments and by the ADMIXTURE authors themselves (10.1007/978-1-0716-0199-0_4).

- Supplemental Tables 2 - 4: The AFR variable is the fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, which has support on [0, 1]. Because the coefficient on AFR and the interaction with hiPSI are effects for a 1-unit change in AFR, they are therefore a bit hard to interpret. The authors could rescale these coefficients to be for a change of 0.1 in the fraction of genetic similarity, which would be more interpretable without changing any inferences or plots.

- Lines 168-70, 192-3, 213-4: The phrase “…the effect estimate is not significantly associated with an interaction between hiPSI and AFR…” is a bit confusing. The authors should say that either (1) there was no evidence of interaction between hiPSI and AFR or (2) the hiPSI effect estimate was not significantly associated with the fraction of genetic similarity to AFR.

Reviewer #2: Based on this revision, I do not have major issues and would like to suggest the manuscript is publishable. Minor comments are provided as follows for improving readability.

Minor comments

1) Line 159, “P=008” seems to be typo.

2) Line 340-341, “Using smartpca, we projected PMBB participants

on to 1000G PC space to derive eigenvectors” sounds inaccurate. Eigenvectors in PCA are PC vectors and, as the author indicated, it is the projection of a sample data on those eigenvectors obtained with 1000G data, instead of the derivation of eigenvectors.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy , and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: No:  The authors state that their data cannot be made publicly available as they contain sensitive information on human subjects, which is reasonable. The authors also state that requests from accredited researchers for access to individual-level data relevant to this manuscript can be made by contacting biobank@upenn.edu and have committed to making the code publicly available upon publication.

Reviewer #2: No: 

**********

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

[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.]

Figure resubmission:

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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 3

Xiaofeng Zhu

Dear Dr Damrauer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Titin-Truncating variants Predispose to Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Populations Genetically Similar to African and European Reference Populations" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Todd L. Edwards

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Xiaofeng Zhu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository . As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website .

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: 

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-24-00140R3

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy  requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org .

Acceptance letter

Xiaofeng Zhu

PGENETICS-D-24-00140R3

Titin-Truncating variants Predispose to Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Populations Genetically Similar to African and European Reference Populations

Dear Dr Damrauer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Titin-Truncating variants Predispose to Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Populations Genetically Similar to African and European Reference Populations" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Olena Szabo

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Summary of results from previously published cohort studies on the association of TTN truncating variants and prevalent dilated cardiomyopathy diagnosis. hiPSI TTNtv = high percentage spliced in titin truncating variants; DCM = Dilated cardiomyopathy; EUR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project European reference population; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population; OR = odds ratio.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011727.s001.xlsx (9.5KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Effect of hiPSI TTN truncating variants, a 0.1 change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, and the interaction of the two covariates in logistic regression analysis of DCM risk accounting for age, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. hiPSI = high percentage spliced in; DCM = Dilated cardiomyopathy; UCB = upper confidence bound; LCB = lower confidence bound; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011727.s002.xlsx (9.1KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Effect of hiPSI TTN truncating variants, a 0.1 change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, and the interaction of the two covariates in linear regression analysis of change in LVEF accounting for age, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. hiPSI = high percentage spliced in; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; UCB = upper confidence bound; LCB = lower confidence bound; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011727.s003.xlsx (9.1KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Effect of hiPSI TTN truncating variants, a 0.1 change in fraction of genetic similarity to the AFR reference population, and the interaction of the two covariates in logistic regression analysis of Afib risk accounting for age, sex, and the first five genetic PCs. hiPSI = high percentage spliced in; Afib = Atrial fibrillation; UCB = upper confidence bound; LCB = lower confidence bound; AFR = genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project African reference population.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011727.s004.xlsx (9.1KB, xlsx)
    S1 Fig. ADMIXTURE population group analysis in the Penn Medicine Biobank cohort.

    Vertical bars represent individual participants with stacked color bars representing a particular individual’s fractional composition of 1000 Genomes Project continental-level reference population groups (AFR: African reference population; AMR: Americas reference population; EAS: east Asian reference population; EUR: European reference population, SAS: south Asian reference population).

    (TIFF)

    pgen.1011727.s005.tiff (1.2MB, tiff)
    S2 Fig. Effect of high percentage spliced in titin truncating variant on risk of dilated cardiomyopathy diagnosis stratified by genetically similar group excluding those with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

    Logistic regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs and DCM diagnosis among individuals genetically similar to the 1000 Genomes Project European and African reference population, and meta-analyzed. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; EUR = individuals genetically similar to the European reference population; AFR = individuals genetically similar to the African reference population; ICM = ischemic cardiomyopathy.

    (TIFF)

    pgen.1011727.s006.tiff (24.2MB, tiff)
    S3 Fig. Effect of high percentage spliced in titin truncating variant on minimum LVEF stratified by genetic similarity to 1000 Genomes Project reference population excluding those with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

    Linear regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs on risk of decreased minimum LVEF stratified by genetic similarity to the 1000G EUR and AFR reference populations. CI = confidence interval; EUR = individuals genetically similar to the European reference population; AFR = individuals genetically similar to the African reference population; ICM = ischemic cardiomyopathy.

    (TIFF)

    pgen.1011727.s007.tiff (20.7MB, tiff)
    S4 Fig. Effect of TTN truncating variants on risk of atrial fibrillation, stratified by genetic similarity to 1000 Genomes Project reference population and by fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE.

    Logistic regression analysis of the association between hiPSI TTNtvs on risk of Afib stratified by genetic similarity to the 1000G EUR and AFR reference populations including (A) and excluding (B) individuals with ischemic cardiomyopathy with heterogeneity statistics included; (C) Logistic regression analysis of the interaction between hiPSI TTNtv and fraction AFR by ADMIXTURE where the dark blue line is the interaction effect estimate across the continuum of fraction of AFR, the grey shaded area are the 95% CIs, and the red dashed line is OR = 1. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; EUR = 1000G European reference population; AFR = 1000G African reference population; ICM = ischemic cardiomyopathy.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011727.s008.tif (552.5KB, tif)
    S1 Text. List of the Penn Medicine BioBank Banner team members with their contributions.

    (DOCX)

    pgen.1011727.s009.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review.docx

    pgen.1011727.s010.docx (28.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 11_02_24_PLOS_Gen_Detailed Response to Reviewers.docx

    pgen.1011727.s013.docx (1.1MB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PlosGen_review_Nov2024.docx

    pgen.1011727.s012.docx (20.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 021825_PLOS_Gen_response.docx

    pgen.1011727.s014.docx (403.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 042425_PLOS_Gen_response.docx

    pgen.1011727.s015.docx (3.7MB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Individual-level data are not publicly available due to research participant privacy concerns; requests from accredited researchers for access to individual-level data relevant to this manuscript can be made by contacting biobank@upenn.edu


    Articles from PLOS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES