Skip to main content
UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts logoLink to UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 25.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Genet. 2020 Nov 23;52(12):1314–1332. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-00713-x

Discovery of rare variants associated with blood pressure regulation through meta-analysis of 1.3 million individuals

Praveen Surendran 1,2,3,4,#, Elena V Feofanova 5,#, Najim Lahrouchi 6,7,8,#, Ioanna Ntalla 9,#, Savita Karthikeyan 1,#, James Cook 10, Lingyan Chen 1, Borbala Mifsud 9,11, Chen Yao 12,13, Aldi T Kraja 14, James H Cartwright 9, Jacklyn N Hellwege 15, Ayush Giri 15,16, Vinicius Tragante 17,18, Gudmar Thorleifsson 18, Dajiang J Liu 19, Bram P Prins 1, Isobel D Stewart 20, Claudia P Cabrera 9,21, James M Eales 22, Artur Akbarov 22, Paul L Auer 23, Lawrence F Bielak 24, Joshua C Bis 25, Vickie S Braithwaite 20,26,27, Jennifer A Brody 25, E Warwick Daw 14, Helen R Warren 9,21, Fotios Drenos 28,29, Sune Fallgaard Nielsen 30, Jessica D Faul 31, Eric B Fauman 32, Cristiano Fava 33,34, Teresa Ferreira 35, Christopher N Foley 1,36, Nora Franceschini 37, He Gao 38,39, Olga Giannakopoulou 9,40, Franco Giulianini 41, Daniel F Gudbjartsson 18,42, Xiuqing Guo 43, Sarah E Harris 44,45, Aki S Havulinna 45,46, Anna Helgadottir 18, Jennifer E Huffman 47, Shih-Jen Hwang 48,49, Stavroula Kanoni 9,50, Jukka Kontto 46, Martin G Larson 51,52, Ruifang Li-Gao 53, Jaana Lindström 46, Luca A Lotta 20, Yingchang Lu 54,55, Jian’an Luan 20, Anubha Mahajan 56,57, Giovanni Malerba 58, Nicholas G D Masca 59,60, Hao Mei 61, Cristina Menni 62, Dennis O Mook-Kanamori 53,63, David Mosen-Ansorena 38, Martina Müller-Nurasyid 64,65,66, Guillaume Paré 67, Dirk S Paul 1,2,68, Markus Perola 46,69, Alaitz Poveda 70, Rainer Rauramaa 71,72, Melissa Richard 73, Tom G Richardson 74, Nuno Sepúlveda 75,76, Xueling Sim 77,78, Albert V Smith 79,80,81, Jennifer A Smith 24,31, James R Staley 1,74, Alena Stanáková 82, Patrick Sulem 18, Sébastien Thériault 83,84, Unnur Thorsteinsdottir 18,80, Stella Trompet 85,86, Tibor V Varga 70, Digna R Velez Edwards 87, Giovanni Veronesi 88, Stefan Weiss 89,90, Sara M Willems 20, Jie Yao 91, Robin Young 1,92, Bing Yu 5, Weihua Zhang 38,39,93, Jing-Hua Zhao 1,20,68, Wei Zhao 94, Wei Zhao 24, Evangelos Εvangelou 38,95, Stefanie Aeschbacher 96, Eralda Asllanaj 97,98, Stefan Blankenberg 90,99,100,101, Lori L Bonnycastle 102, Jette Bork-Jensen 103, Ivan Brandslund 104,105, Peter S Braund 59,60, Stephen Burgess 1,36,68, Kelly Cho 106,107,108, Cramer Christensen 109, John Connell 110, Renée de Mutsert 53, Anna F Dominiczak 111, Marcus Dörr 90,112, Gudny Eiriksdottir 79, Aliki-Eleni Farmaki 113,114, J Michael Gaziano 106,107,108, Niels Grarup 103, Megan L Grove-Gaona 5, Göran Hallmans 115, Torben Hansen 103, Christian T Have 103, Gerardo Heiss 37, Marit E Jørgensen 116, Pekka Jousilahti 46, Eero Kajantie 46,117,118,119, Mihir Kamat 1,68, AnneMari Käräjämäki 120,121, Fredrik Karpe 57,122, Heikki A Koistinen 46,123,124, Csaba P Kovesdy 125, Kari Kuulasmaa 46, Tiina Laatikainen 46,126, Lars Lannfelt 127, I-Te Lee 128,129,130,131, Wen-Jane Lee 132,133; LifeLines Cohort Study , Allan Linneberg 134,135, Lisa W Martin 136, Marie Moitry 137, Girish Nadkarni 54, Matt J Neville 57,122, Colin N A Palmer 138, George J Papanicolaou 139, Oluf Pedersen 103, James Peters 1,3,140, Neil Poulter 141, Asif Rasheed 142, Katrine L Rasmussen 30, N William Rayner 56,57, Reedik Mägi 143, Frida Renström 70,115, Rainer Rettig 90,144, Jacques Rossouw 145, Pamela J Schreiner 146, Peter J Sever 141, Emil L Sigurdsson 147,148, Tea Skaaby 149, Yan V Sun 150, Johan Sundstrom 151, Gudmundur Thorgeirsson 18,80,152, Tõnu Esko 143,153, Elisabetta Trabetti 58, Philip S Tsao 154, Tiinamaija Tuomi 155,156,157, Stephen T Turner 158, Ioanna Tzoulaki 38,95,265, Ilonca Vaartjes 159,160, Anne-Claire Vergnaud 38, Cristen J Willer 161,162,163, Peter WF Wilson 164, Daniel R Witte 165,166,167, Ekaterina Yonova-Doing 1, He Zhang 161, Naheed Aliya 168, Peter Almgren 169, Philippe Amouyel 170,171,172,173, Folkert W Asselbergs 17,174,175, Michael R Barnes 9,21, Alexandra I Blakemore 28,176, Michael Boehnke 77, Michiel L Bots 159,160, Erwin P Bottinger 54, Julie E Buring 41,177, John C Chambers 38,39,93,178,179, Yii-Der Ida Chen 91, Rajiv Chowdhury 1, David Conen 83,180, Adolfo Correa 181, George Davey Smith 74, Rudolf A de Boer 182, Ian J Deary 44,183, George Dedoussis 113, Panos Deloukas 9,21,50,184, Emanuele Di Angelantonio 1,2,3,68,185,186, Paul Elliott 38,39,187,188; EPIC-CVD ; EPIC-InterAct , Stephan B Felix 90,112, Jean Ferrières 189, Ian Ford 92, Myriam Fornage 5,73, Paul W Franks 70,190,191,192, Stephen Franks 193, Philippe Frossard 142, Giovanni Gambaro 194, Tom R Gaunt 74, Leif Groop 195,196, Vilmundur Gudnason 79,80, Tamara B Harris 197, Caroline Hayward 47, Branwen J Hennig 27,198, Karl-Heinz Herzig 199,200, Erik Ingelsson 201,202,203,204, Jaakko Tuomilehto 46,205,206,207, Marjo-Riitta Jarvelin 28,38,39,208, J Wouter Jukema 86,209, Sharon L R Kardia 24, Frank Kee 210, Jaspal S Kooner 39,93,179,211, Charles Kooperberg 212, Lenore J Launer 197, Lars Lind 151, Ruth J F Loos 54,213, Abdulla al Shafi Majumder 214, Markku Laakso 126, Mark I McCarthy 56,57,122, Olle Melander 34, Karen L Mohlke 215, Alison D Murray 216, Børge Grønne Nordestgaard 30, Marju Orho-Melander 34, Chris J Packard 217, Sandosh Padmanabhan 218, Walter Palmas 219, Ozren Polasek 220, David J Porteous 221,222, Andrew M Prentice 27,223, Michael A Province 14, Caroline L Relton 74, Kenneth Rice 224, Paul M Ridker 41,177, Olov Rolandsson 191, Frits R Rosendaal 53, Jerome I Rotter 225, Igor Rudan 226, Veikko Salomaa 46, Nilesh J Samani 59,60, Naveed Sattar 111, Wayne H-H Sheu 128,129,227,228, Blair H Smith 229, Nicole Soranzo 230,231,232, Timothy D Spector 62, John M Starr 44,233, Sebert Sylvain 234,235,236, Kent D Taylor 237, Timo A Lakka 71,72,238, Nicholas J Timpson 74, Martin D Tobin 60,239; Understanding Society Scientific Group , Pim van der Harst 240,241,242, Peter van der Meer 242, Ramachandran S Vasan 51,243, Niek Verweij 244, Jarmo Virtamo 46, Uwe Völker 89,90, David R Weir 31, Eleftheria Zeggini 245,246, Fadi J Charchar 59,247,248; Million Veteran Program , Nicholas J Wareham 20, Claudia Langenberg 20, Maciej Tomaszewski 22,249, Adam S Butterworth 1,2,3,68,185, Mark J Caulfield 9,21, John Danesh 1,2,3,68,185,186, Todd L Edwards 250, Hilma Holm 18, Adriana M Hung 251, Cecilia M Lindgren 35,252,253, Chunyu Liu 254, Alisa K Manning 108,255, Andrew P Morris 10,252,256, Alanna C Morrison 5, Christopher J O’Donnell 257, Bruce M Psaty 25,258,259,260, Danish Saleheen 1,261,262, Kari Stefansson 18,80, Eric Boerwinkle 5,263,267, Daniel I Chasman 41,177,267, Daniel Levy 51,264,267, Christopher Newton-Cheh 6,7,267, Patricia B Munroe 9,21,267,, Joanna M M Howson 1,68,265,267,
PMCID: PMC7610439  EMSID: EMS118016  PMID: 33230300

Abstract

Genetic studies of blood pressure (BP) to date have mainly analyzed common variants (minor allele frequency, MAF > 0.05). In a meta-analysis of up to >1.3 million participants, we discovered 106 new BP-associated genomic regions and 87 rare (MAF ≤ 0.01) variant BP associations (P < 5 × 10-8), of which 32 were in new BP-associated loci and 55 were independent BP-associated SNVs within known BP-associated regions. Average effects of rare variants (44% coding) were ~8 times larger than common variant effects and indicate potential candidate causal genes at new and known loci (e.g. GATA5, PLCB3). BP-associated variants (including rare and common) were enriched in regions of active chromatin in fetal tissues, potentially linking fetal development with BP regulation in later life. Multivariable Mendelian randomization suggested possible inverse effects of elevated systolic and diastolic BP on large artery stroke. Our study demonstrates the utility of rare variant analyses for identifying candidate genes and the results highlight potential therapeutic targets.


Increased blood pressure (BP) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and related disability worldwide1. Its complications are estimated to account for ~10.7 million premature deaths annually1. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and exome array-wide association studies (EAWAS) have identified over 1,000 BP-associated single nucleotide variants (SNVs)219 for this complex, heritable, polygenic trait. The majority of these are common SNVs (MAF > 0.05) with small effects on BP. Most reported associations involve non-coding SNVs, and due to linkage disequilibrium (LD) between common variants, these studies provide limited insights into the specific causal genes through which their effects are mediated. The exome array was designed to facilitate analyses of rare coding variants (MAF ≤ 0.01) with potential functional consequences. Over 80% of SNVs on the array are rare, ~6% are low frequency (0.01 < MAF ≤ 0.05), and ~80% are missense, i.e. the variants implicate a candidate causal gene through changes to the amino acid sequence. Previously, using the exome array, we identified four BP loci with rare variant associations (RBM47, COL21A1, RRAS, DBH)13,14 and a rare nonsense BP variant in ENPEP, encoding an aminopeptidase with a known role in BP regulation13. These findings confirmed the utility of rare variant studies for identifying potential causal genes. These rare variant associations had larger effects on BP (typically ~1.5 mmHg per minor allele) than common variants identified by previous studies (typically ~0.5 mmHg per minor allele), many of which had power to detect common variants with large effects. Here, we combine the studies from our previous two exome array reports with additional studies, including the UK Biobank (UKBB) study, to analyze up to ~1.319 million participants and investigate the role of rare SNVs in BP regulation.

Results

We performed an EAWAS and a rare variant GWAS (RV-GWAS) of imputed and genotyped SNVs to identify variants associated with BP traits, hypertension (HTN), and inverse normal transformed systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and pulse pressure (PP) using (i) single variant analysis and (ii) a gene-based test approach. An overview of our study design for both the EAWAS and for the RV-GWAS is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Study design for single variant discovery.

Figure 1

a, Exome array-wide association study (EAWAS) of SBP, DBP, PP and HTN. In Stage 1, we performed two fixed effect meta-analyses for each of the blood pressure (BP) phenotypes SBP, DBP, PP and HTN: one meta-analysis including 810,865 individuals of European (EUR) ancestry and a second pan-ancestry (PA) meta-analysis including 870,217 individuals of EUR, South Asians (SAS), East Asians (EAS), African Ancestry (AA), Hispanics (HIS) and Native Americans (NAm) (Supplementary Tables 23 and 24; Methods). Summary association statistics for SNVs with P < 5 × 10-8 in Stage 1 that were outside of previously reported BP loci (Methods, Supplementary Tables 1 and 25) were requested in independent studies (up to 448,667 participants; Supplementary Table 24). In Stage 2, we performed both a EUR and a PA meta-analyses for each trait of Stage 1 results and summary statistics from the additional studies. Only SNVs that were associated with a BP trait at P < 5 × 10-8 in the combined Stage 2 EUR or PA meta-analyses and had concordant directions of effect across studies (P heterogeneity > 1 × 10-4; Methods) were considered significant. Further details are provided in the Methods and Supplementary Information. b, Rare variant GWAS (RV-GWAS) of SBP, DBP and PP. For SNVs outside of the previously reported BP loci (Methods, Supplementary Tables 1 and 6) with P < 1 × 10-7 in Stage 1, summary association statistics were requested from MVP (up to 225,112 participants; Supplementary Table 24). In Stage 2, we performed meta-analyses of Stage 1 and MVP for SBP, DBP and PP in EUR. SNVs that were associated with a BP trait at P < 5 × 10-8 in the combined Stage 2 EUR with concordant directions of effect across UKBB and MVP (P heterogeneity >1 × 10-4; Methods) were considered significant. Justification of the significance thresholds used and further information on the statistical methods are detailed in the Methods and Supplementary Information. *Total number of participants analyzed within each study that provided single variant association summaries following the data request—EAWAS EUR: Million Veterans Program (MVP: 225,113), deCODE (127,478) and GENOA (1,505); EAWAS PA: Million Veterans Program (MVP: 225,113 EUR; 63,490 AA; 22,802 HIS; 2,695 Nam; 4,792 EAS), deCODE (127,478 participants from Iceland) and GENOA (1,505 EUR; 792 AA); RV-GWAS EUR: Million Veterans Program (MVP: 225,112 EUR).

Blood pressure associations in the EAWAS

We performed a discovery meta-analysis to identify genetic variants associated with BP in up to ~1.32 million individuals. To achieve this, we first performed a meta-analysis of 247,315 exome array variants in up to 92 studies (870,217 participants, including UKBB) for association with BP, Stage 1 (Fig. 1, Methods, and Supplementary Information). There were 362 BP loci known at the time of the analysis (Supplementary Table 1), 240 of which were covered on the exome array. To improve statistical power for discovery for a subset of variants significant in Stage 1 at P < 5 × 10-8 outside of the known BP regions (Supplementary Table 1a), we requested summary association statistics from three additional studies (Million Veteran Program (MVP), deCODE, and GENOA). We then performed meta-analyses of the three data request studies and Stage 1 results to discover novel variants associated with BP. In total, 343 SNVs (200 genomic regions; Methods) were associated (P < 5 × 10-8) with one or more BP traits in the Stage 2 single variant European (EUR) EAWAS meta-analyses involving up to ~1.168 million individuals (Table 1, Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2, and Supplementary Information). A further seven SNVs (seven genomic regions) were only associated (P < 5 × 10-8) in the pan-ancestry (PA) meta-analyses of ~1.319 million individuals (Supplementary Table 2). All 350 SNV-BP associations were novel at the time of analysis (204 loci), 220 have subsequently been reported20,21, and 130 SNVs (99 loci) remain novel, including nine rare and 13 low-frequency SNVs (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2, Supplementary Fig. 1).

Table 1. Rare and low-frequency SNV-blood pressure associations in participants of European ancestry from the (Stage 2) EAWAS and (Stage 2) RV-GWAS that map to new BP loci.

Locus rsID Chr:Pos Gene EA/OA Amino acids Consequence Trait EAF β P Het P n
Exome array-wide association study (EAWAS)
10 rs11580946 1:150,551,327 MCL1 A/G p.Val227Ala missense PP 0.016 -0.37 2.74x10-9 0.24 1,159,900
11 rs61747728 1:179,526,214 NPHS2 T/C p.Gln229Arg missense DBP 0.040 0.26 8.74x10-13 0.22 1,160,530
16 rs4149909 1:242,023,898 EXO1 G/A p.Ser279Asn missense SBP 0.033 0.36 2.46x10-8 0.09 1,158,190
32 rs3821033 2:219,507,302 ZNF142 T/C p.Thr1313Ala missense DBP 0.033 -0.29 1.42x10-13 0.75 1,160,530
rs16859180 2:219,553,468 STK36 T/C p.Trp477Arg missense DBP 0.049 -0.26 1.11x10-16 0.34 1,160,530
44 rs145072852 3:101,476,645 CEP97 T/C p.Phe399Leu missense PP 0.004 1.05 1.42x10-13 0.01 1,158,820
46 rs139600783 3:119,109,769 ARHGAP31 T/C p.Ser274Pro missense HTN 0.008 5.85 5.05x10-9 0.19 975,381
50 rs73181210 3:169,831,268 PHC3 C/T p.Glu692Lys missense DBP 0.009 -0.66 9.14x10-15 0.04 1,159,580
52 rs11937432 4: 2,233,709 HAUS3 G/A p.Thr586Ile missense DBP 0.046 0.21 9.56x10-10 0.26 1,160,520
58 rs1229984 4:100,239,319 ADH1B T/C p.His48Arg missense PP 0.026 -0.75 2.97x10-25 0.54 686,104
63 rs143057152 4:149,075,755 NR3C2 T/C p.His771Arg missense SBP 0.003 1.75 4.14x10-14 0.22 1,128,880
71 rs61755724 5:132,408,967 HSPA4 A/G p.Thr159Ala missense DBP 0.024 0.26 9.75x10-9 0.36 1,160,530
72 rs33956817 5:137,278,682 FAM13B C/T p.Met802Val missense SBP 0.044 0.31 1.76x10-8 0.27 1,158,190
77 rs34471628 5:172,196,752 DUSP1 G/A p.His187Tyr missense DBP 0.039 -0.23 3.00x10-10 0.42 1,153,300
85 rs45573936 6: 44,198,362 SLC29A1 C/T p.Ile295Thr missense DBP 0.027 -0.38 3.70x10-19 0.59 1,160,530
100 rs144867634 7:111,580,166 DOCK4 C/T p.Val326Met missense/splice region DBP 0.025 -0.26 2.62x10-8 0.04 1,160,530
109 rs56335308 8: 17,419,461 SLC7A2 A/G p.Met545Val missense DBP 0.025 0.31 1.40x10-10 0.26 1,160,530
114 rs76767219 8: 81,426,196 ZBTB10 A/C p.Glu346Ala missense SBP 0.034 -0.44 4.41x10-13 0.18 1,160,830
119 rs61732533 8:145,108,151 OPLAH A/G - synonymous DBP 0.049 -0.21 2.05x10-10 0.86 1,085,170
rs34674752 8:145,154,222 SHARPIN A/G p.Ser294Pro missense DBP 0.049 -0.19 5.89x10-10 0.91 1,132,350
146 rs117874826 11: 64,027,666 PLCB3 C/A p.Ala564Glu missense SBP 0.014 0.71 4.67x10-12 0.42 1,153,360
rs145502455 11: 64,031,030 PLCB3 A/G p.Ile806Val missense SBP 0.005 0.90 5.01x10-9 0.04 1,156,310
154 rs141325069 12: 20,769,270 PDE3A A/G p.Gln459Arg missense SBP 0.003 1.45 6.25x10-11 0.82 1,134,260
158 rs77357563 12:114,837,349 TBX5 A/C p.Tyr111Asp missense PP 0.005 -1.01 7.72x10-22 0.22 1,152,080
159 rs13141 12:121,756,084 ANAPC5 A/G p.Val630Ala missense DBP 0.011 0.52 1.98x10-12 0.63 1,156,950
168 rs17880989 14: 23,313,633 MMP14 A/G p.Ile355Met missense DBP 0.027 0.32 2.02x10-14 0.95 1,160,530
169 rs61754158 14: 31,774,324 HEATR5A T/C p.Arg1670Gly missense SBP 0.009 -0.70 6.28x10-9 0.04 1,119,230
170 rs72681869 14: 50,655,357 SOS2 C/G p.Arg191Pro missense SBP 0.010 -1.22 2.25x10-22 0.25 1,144,040
177 rs150843673 15: 81,624,929 TMC3 T/G p.Ser1045Ter stop/lost DBP 0.021 0.36 1.43x10-12 0.14 1,154,000
181 rs61739285 16: 27,480,797 GTF3C1 T/C p.His1630Arg missense DBP 0.035 0.24 4.71x10-10 0.04 1,155,020
186 rs62051555 16: 72,830,539 ZFHX3 G/C p.His2014Gln missense PP 0.048 0.47 1.19x10-25 0.43 797,332
206 rs11699758 20: 60,901,762 LAMA5 T/C p.Ile1757Val missense PP 0.034 -0.26 6.68x10-11 0.54 1,154,410
rs13039398 20: 60,902,402 LAMA5 A/G p.Trp1667Arg missense PP 0.033 -0.26 1.89x10-10 0.44 1,133,830
Rare variant – genome-wide association study (RV-GWAS)
215 rs55833332 1:198,222,215 NEK7 G/C p.Gly35Arg missense PP 0.008 0.62 4.58x10-8 0.08 670,129
rs143554274 1:198,455,391 ATP6V1G3 T/C - intergenic PP 0.008 0.71 1.26x10-9 0.14 670,128
216 rs12135454 1:219,310,461 LYPLAL1-AS1 T/C - intron PP 0.010 -0.62 1.61x10-8 0.22 665,523
rs12128471 1:219,534,485 RP11-392O17.1 A/G - intergenic PP 0.010 -0.68 2.99x10-9 0.19 670,130
217 rs114026228 4: 99,567,918 TSPAN5 C/T - intron PP 0.008 -0.65 5.20x10-9 0.03 670,128
rs145441283 4: 99,751,794 EIF4E G/A - intergenic PP 0.010 -0.71 2.01x10-11 0.08 670,128
219 rs187207161 6:122,339,304 HMGB3P18 C/T - intergenic PP 0.009 -0.63 2.16x10-10 0.02 670,130
221 rs149165710 8:121,002,676 DEPTOR A/G - intron PP 0.003 1.32 2.78x10-12 0.03 665,523
222 rs184289122 10:106,191,229 CFAP58 G/A - intron SBP 0.008 1.31 1.66x10-13 0.53 670,472
rs7076147 10:106,250,394 RP11-127O4.3 G/A - intergenic SBP 0.010 1.11 1.71x10-14 0.75 670,472
rs75337836 10:106,272,188 RP11-127O4.3 T/G - intergenic SBP 0.010 1.12 2.67x10-15 0.54 670,472
rs142760284 10:106,272,601 RP11-127O4.3 A/C - intergenic SBP 0.009 1.22 2.19x10-15 0.92 670,472
rs576629818 10:106,291,923 RP11-127O4.3 T/C - intergenic SBP 0.009 1.24 1.02x10-15 0.71 670,472
rs556058784 10:106,322,283 RP11-127O4.2 G/A - intergenic SBP 0.009 1.26 4.54x10-16 0.57 665,861
rs535313355 10:106,399,140 SORCS3 C/T - upstream gene SBP 0.009 1.36 1.04x10-17 0.22 670,472
rs181200083 10:106,520,975 SORCS3 C/A - intron SBP 0.009 1.60 1.08x10-21 0.58 665,861
rs540369678 10:106,805,351 SORCS3 T/A - intron SBP 0.010 1.18 2.29x10-14 0.16 670,472
rs117627418 10:107,370,555 RP11-45P22.2 T/C - intergenic SBP 0.009 1.11 1.98x10-11 0.1 665,861
224 rs138656258 14: 31,541,910 AP4S1 G/T - intron SBP 0.007 -0.93 1.15x10-8 0.13 665,861
228 rs6061911 20: 60,508,289 CDH4 C/T - intron SBP 0.010 -0.85 4.67x10-8 0.09 665,861
rs114580352 20: 60,529,963 TAF4 A/G - intron SBP 0.009 -0.84 1.99x10-8 0.04 665,860
rs11907239 20: 60,531,853 TAF4 A/G - intron SBP 0.009 -0.82 4.99x10-8 0.05 670,472
rs200383755 20: 61,050,522 GATA5 C/G p.Trp19Ser missense DBP 0.006 1.00 1.01x10-13 0.49 670,172

Newly identified rare and low-frequency SNV-inverse normal transformed blood pressure associations are reported from Stage 2 of the exome array study and genome-wide association study. The reported associations are for the trait with the smallest P-value in the Stage 1 meta-analysis; the full results are provided in Supplementary Tables 2 and 7. SNVs are ordered by trait, chromosome, and position. Gene, gene containing the SNV or the nearest gene; rsID, dbSNP rsID; Chr:Pos, Chromosome:NCBI Build 37 position; EA/OA, effect allele (also the minor allele) and other allele; EAF, effect allele frequency based on Stage 1; Consequence, consequence of the SNV to the transcript as annotated by VEP; Amino acids, reference and variant amino acids from VEP; Trait, blood pressure trait for which association is reported; β, effect estimate, in mmHg, from the Stage 2 meta-analysis of the untransformed BP trait or the Z-score from the HTN analyses in Stage 2 ; P, P-value for association with the listed inverse normal transformed blood pressure trait from the Stage 2 meta-analyses; Het_P, P-value for heterogeneity; n, sample size. Bold type indicates rare missense variants.

Novel variants identified in this study that are in linkage disequilibrium (LD: r 2 > 0.6 rare SNVs and r 2 > 0.1 common SNVs) with a variant that has been reported by Evangelou et al.20 and/or Giri et al.21 within +/- 500 kb of the novel variant.

Figure 2. New BP associations.

Figure 2

a, Fuji plot of the genome-wide significant BP-associated SNVs from the Stage 2 EAWAS and Stage 2 rare variant GWAS. The first four circles (from inside-out) and the last circle (locus annotation) summarize pleiotropic effects, while circles 5 to 8 summarize the genome-wide significant associations. Every dot or square represents a BP-associated locus, and large dots represent novel BP-associated loci, while small dots represent loci containing novel variants identified in this study, which are in linkage disequilibrium with a variant reported by Evangelou et al.20 and/or Giri et al.21. All loci are independent of each other, but due to the scale of the plot, dots for loci in close proximity overlap. *Loci with rare variant associations. b, Venn diagram showing the overlap of the 107 new BP loci across the analyzed BP traits. c, Functional annotation from VEP of all the identified rare variants in known and novel regions. d, Plots of minor allele frequency against effect estimate on the transformed scale for the BP-associated SNVs. Blue squares are new BP-associated SNVs, black dots represent SNVs at known loci, and red dots are newly identified distinct BP-associated SNVs at known loci. Effect estimates and SEs for the novel loci are taken from the Stage 2 EUR analyses (up to 1,164,961 participants), while for the known are from the Stage 1 analyses (up to 810,865 participants). Results are from the EAWAS where available and the GWAS (up to 670,472 participants) if the known variants were not on the exome array (data from Supplementary Tables 1, 3, 7, 8, and 25 were used).

All nine novel rare BP-associated SNVs identified in the EAWAS were conditionally independent of common variant associations within the respective regions (Supplementary Table 3) using the multi-SNP-based conditional and joint association analysis (GCTA v1.91.4)22 with the Stage 1 EUR EAWAS results (Methods and Supplementary Table 4). In addition to the rare variants, there were 147 additional distinct (P < 1 × 10-6) common SNV-BP associations (46% were missense variants), and 18 distinct low-frequency SNVs (89% were missense). Approximately 59% of the distinct BP-associated SNVs were coding or in strong LD (r 2 > 0.8) with coding SNVs. In total, 42 of the 99 novel loci had two or more distinct BP-associated SNVs in the conditional analyses. Of the 50 loci that were previously identified using UKBB16,17 and were on the exome array, 43 replicated at P < 0.001 (Bonferroni correction for 50 known variants) in samples independent of the original discovery (Supplementary Table 5).

Blood pressure associations from EUR RV-GWAS

We tested a further 29,454,346 (29,404,959 imputed and 49,387 genotyped) rare SNVs for association with BP in 445,360 UKBB participants23 using BOLT-LMM24 (Fig. 1 and Methods). The SNVs analyzed as part of the EAWAS were not included in the RV-GWAS. Similar to EAWAS, within RV-GWAS we performed a single discovery meta-analyses to identify rare SNVs associated with BP. In Stage 1 (UKBB), 84 rare SNVs outside of the known BP loci (at the time of our analyses) were associated with one or more BP traits at P < 1 × 10-7 (Supplementary Table 6). Additional data were requested from MVP for the 84 BP-associated SNVs in up to 225,112 EUR from the MVP, and 66 were available. Meta-analyses of Stage 1 (UKBB) and results obtained from MVP were performed for novel rare variant discovery. We identified 23 unique rare SNVs associated with one or more BP traits (P < 5 × 10-8) with consistent direction of effects in a meta-analysis of UKBB and MVP (min P heterogeneity = 0.02) (Table 1, Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 7, and Supplementary Fig. 1). Two of the SNVs, rs55833332 (p.Arg35Gly) in NEK7 and rs200383755 (p.Ser19Trp) in GATA5, were missense. Eleven rare SNVs were genome-wide significant in UKBB alone but were not available in MVP and await further support in independent studies (Supplementary Table 7).

Rare and low frequency variant associations at established BP loci

It is difficult to prioritize candidate genes at common variant loci for functional follow up. We believe analysis of rare (MAF < 0.01) and very low frequency coding variants (MAF ≤ 0.02) in known loci may provide further support for or identify a candidate causal gene at a locus. Twelve of the 240 BP-associated regions had one or more conditionally independent rare variant associations (P < 10-6 in the GCTA joint model of the EUR Stage 1 EAWAS; Methods, Table 2, and Supplementary Table 3). A further nine loci had one or more conditionally independent BP-associated SNVs with MAF ≤ 0.02 (Table 2 and Supplementary Table 8). In total, 183 SNVs (rare and common) across 110 known loci were not identified previously.

Table 2. Conditionally independent rare and very low-frequency SNV (MAF < 0.02) associations from exome array at known loci in Stage 1 EUR studies.

Locus ID rsID Chr:bp Gene EA/OA AA Consequence Trait EAF β_joint P_joint n Ref
18 rs116245325 1: 153665650 NPR1+ T/C p.Phe1034Leu Missense SBP 0.001 0.1660 7.49x10-9 758,252 14
rs61757359 1: 153658297 A/G p.Ser541Gly Missense 0.003 -0.0812 6.10x10-9 794,698
rs35479618 ** 1: 153662423 A/G p.Lys967Glu Missense 0.017 0.0694 1.19x10-28 774,862
28 rs1805090 1: 230840034 AGT+ T/G p.Met392Leu Missense DBP 0.002 0.1070 6.00x10-10 759,349 8
rs699 1: 230845794 G/A p.Thr268Met Missense DBP 0.408 0.0225 2.12x10-45 806,731
94 rs111620813 4: 8293193 HTRA3+ A/G p.Met269Val Missense PP 0.011 -0.0432 1.38x10-8 798,063 18
rs7437940 ** 4: 7887500 AFAP1 T/C - Intron PP 0.406 -0.0131 1.62x10-16 806,708
102 rs112519623 4: 103184239 SLC39A8+ A/G p.Phe449Leu Missense DBP 0.016 -0.0391 3.02x10-10 803,151 6
rs13107325 ** 4: 103188709 T/C p.Thr391Ala Missense DBP 0.072 -0.0615 9.69x10-88 806,731
rs4699052 4: 104137790 CENPE T/C - Intergenic DBP 0.388 -0.0121 7.31x10-14 806,731
105 rs6825911 4: 111381638 ENPEP T/C - Intron DBP 0.205 -0.0215 1.47x10-28 801,965
rs33966350 4: 111431444 A/G p.Ter413Trp Stop/lost DBP 0.013 0.0735 2.40x10-25 798,385
144 rs4712056 ** 6: 53989526 MLIP G/A p.Val159Il Missense PP 0.360 0.0091 1.86x10-8 806,708 14,16,13
rs115079907 6: 55924005 COL21A1+ T/C p.Arg882Gly Missense PP 0.003 0.2060 8.33x10-17 783,546
rs12209452 6: 55924962 G/A p.Pro821Leu Missense PP 0.049 0.0411 5.49x10-26 743,036
rs200999181 ** 6: 55935568 A/C p.Val665Gly Missense PP 0.001 0.3350 4.74x10-43 764,864
rs35471617 6: 56033094 A/G p.Met343Thr Missense/splice region PP 0.073 0.0249 1.03x10-15 806,708
rs2764043 6: 56035643 G/A p.Pro277Leu Missense PP 0.002 0.1530 5.11x10-14 785,643
rs1925153 ** 6: 56102780 T/C - Intron PP 0.448 -0.0096 1.03x10-8 786,734
rs4294007 6: 57512510 PRIM2 T/G - Splice acceptor PP 0.379 0.0096 1.13x10-7 632,625
208 rs507666 9:136149399 ABO A/G - Intron DBP 0.189 -0.0293 7.53x10-47 796,103 13,15
rs3025343 9:136478355 LL09NC01-254D11.1 A/G - Exon (noncoding transcript) DBP 0.112 -0.0126 4.91x10-7 806,731
rs77273740 9:136501728 DBH T/C p.Trp65Arg Missense DBP 0.027 -0.0846 3.85x10-11 790,500
rs3025380 9:136501756 DBH C/G p.Ala74Gly Missense DBP 0.005 -0.1030 5.37x10-18 795,263
rs74853476 9:136501834 DBH T/C - Splice donor DBP 0.002 0.1000 3.69x10-8 775,793
223 rs201422605 10: 95993887 PLCE1 G/A p.Val678Met Missense SBP 0.003 -0.0837 1.41x10-7 795,009 7,14
rs11187837 10: 96035980 C/T - Intron SBP 0.110 -0.0198 4.23x10-14 801,969
rs17417407 10: 95931087 T/G p.Leu548Arg Missense SBP 0.167 -0.0122 9.97x10-9 806,735
rs9419788 10: 96013705 G/A - Intron SBP 0.387 0.0137 9.63x10-16 806,735
229 rs60889456 11: 723311 EPS8L2+ T/C p.Leu471Pro Missense PP 0.017 0.0303 6.37x10-7 799,021 17
rs7126805 ** 11: 828916 CRACR2B G/A p.Gln77Arg Missense PP 0.271 -0.0134 1.43x10-13 752,026
246* rs56061986 11: 89182686 NOX4+ C/T p.Gly67Ser Missense PP 0.003 -0.1080 2.25x10-11 798,273 17,16
rs139341533 11: 89182666 A/C p.Phe97Leu Missense PP 0.004 -0.0947 6.82x10-14 785,947
rs10765211 11: 89228425 A/G - Intron PP 0.342 -0.0176 8.77x10-27 806,708
250 rs117249984 11: 107375422 ALKBH8 A/C p.Tyr653Asp Missense SBP 0.019 -0.0304 2.90x10-7 805,695 16
rs3758911 11: 107197640 CWF19L2 C/T p.Cys894Tyr Missense SBP 0.341 0.0113 1.54x10-11 806,735
304 rs61738491 16: 30958481 FBXL19+ A/G p.Gln652Arg Missense PP 0.010 -0.0460 1.25x10-8 796,459 17,16
rs35675346 ** 16: 30936081 A/G p.Lys10Glu Missense PP 0.241 -0.0125 1.06x10-11 802,932
130 * rs114280473 5: 122714092 CEP120+ A/G p.Phe712Leu Missense PP 0.006 -0.0584 9.98x10-8 805,632 13, 12, 14, 15
rs2303720 5: 122682334 T/C p.His947Arg Missense PP 0.029 -0.0419 3.44x10-18 806,708
rs1644318 5: 122471989 PRDM6 C/T - Intron PP 0.387 0.0192 2.43x10-32 790,025
179 * rs3735080 7: 150217309 GIMAP7 T/C p.Cys83Arg Missense DBP 0.237 -0.0092 6.56x10-7 806,731 9, 14, 10
rs3807375 7: 150667210 KCNH2 T/C - Intron DBP 0.364 -0.0084 3.94x10-7 806,731
rs3918234 7: 150708035 NOS3+ T/A p.Leu982Gln Missense DBP 0.004 -0.0727 1.33x10-7 786,541
rs891511 ** 7: 150704843 A/G - Intron DBP 0.331 -0.0231 1.56x10-40 778,271
rs10224002 ** 7: 151415041 PRKAG2 G/A - Intron DBP 0.286 0.0186 7.41x10-27 806,731
190 * rs138582164 8: 95264265 GEM+ A/G p.Ter199Arg Stop lost PP 0.001 0.2810 1.90x10-17 735,507 16, 78
195 * rs112892337 8: 135614553 ZFAT+ C/G p.Cys470Ser Missense SBP 0.005 -0.0831 4.39x10-12 792,203 17
rs12680655 8: 135637337 G/C - Intron SBP 0.398 0.0118 1.81x10-13 797,982
259 * rs145878042 12: 48143315 RAPGEF3+ G/A p.Pro258Leu Missense SBP 0.012 -0.0453 9.28x10-10 805,791 16, 13
rs148755202 12: 48191247 HDAC7 T/C p.His166Arg Missense SBP 0.016 0.0310 9.07x10-7 806,735
rs1471997 12: 48723595 H1FNT A/G p.Gln174Arg Missense SBP 0.216 0.0130 1.15x10-11 806,735
rs1126930 ** 12: 49399132 PRKAG1 C/G p.Ser98Thr Missense SBP 0.035 0.0408 1.45x10-21 793,216
rs52824916 ** 12: 49993678 FAM186B T/C p.Gln582Arg Missense SBP 0.088 -0.0155 1.70x10-8 806,735
rs7302981 ** 12: 50537815 CERS5 A/G p.Cys75Arg Missense SBP 0.375 0.0219 1.52x10-41 806,735
312 * rs61753655 17: 1372839 MYO1C+ T/C p.Lys866Glu Missense SBP 0.011 0.0653 6.48x10-18 806,735 17, 16
rs1885987 17: 2203025 SMG6 G/T p.Thr341Asn Missense SBP 0.371 -0.0127 3.94x10-15 806,735
339 * rs34093919 19: 41117300 LTBP4+ A/G p.Asn715Asp Missense/splice region PP 0.014 -0.0631 4.18x10-20 805,764 19
rs814501 19: 41038574 SPTBN4 G/A p.Gly1331Ser Missense PP 0.482 -0.0115 2.40x10-13 806,708
346 rs45499294 20: 30433126 FOXS1+ T/C p.Lys74Glu Missense SBP 0.004 -0.0732 2.36x10-8 801,284 16

GCTA was used to perform conditional analyses of the meta-analysis results from the exome array study from the Stage 1 meta-analysis of EUR studies in known blood pressure regions (defined in Supplementary Table 1). All SNVs had P < 0.0001 for heterogeneity. The trait selected in this table is the trait for which the rare variant had the smallest P-value. We provide all conditionally independent variants at these loci, i.e. rare, very low frequency (MAF < 0.02), low frequency, and common. The full detailed listing of results is provided in Supplementary Table 8. Bold font highlights variants with MAF < 0.02. Locus ID, the known locus identifier used in Supplementary Table 1; Chr:Position, chromosome and NCBI Build 37 physical position; EA/OA, Effect allele/other allele; AA, amino acid change; Effect, predicted consequence of the SNV from VEP; EAF, effect allele frequency; β_joint, effect estimate for the SNV in the joint analysis from GCTA; P_joint, the P-value for association of the rare variant from the joint analysis in GCTA; Gene, nearest gene; Trait, blood pressure trait analyzed; Ref, reference of the first reports of association in the listed region.

*

Indicates that one or more of the previously reported variants in the locus were not on exome array.

**

Indicates that the listed variant is the known variant or its proxy (r 2 > 0.8 in 1000G EUR).

+

Indicates that the listed gene had an unconditional SKAT P-value < 2 x 10-6 (see Supplementary Table 9).

We used FINEMAP25 to fine-map 315 loci known at the time of our analysis and available in UKBB GWAS, which provides dense coverage of genomic variation not available on the exome array. Of these, 36 loci had one or more conditionally independent rare variant associations (Supplementary Table 8), and 251 loci had multiple common variants associations. We also replicated rare variant associations that we reported previously13,14 at RBM47, COL21A1, RRAS, and DBH (P < 5 × 10-5) in UKBB (independent of prior studies). Overall, from both FINEMAP and GCTA, we identified 40 loci with one or more rare SNV associations, independent of previously reported common variant associations (Table 3, Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 8, and Supplementary Information).

Table 3. Newly identified independent BP-associated rare SNVs (MAF ≤ 0.01) at known loci in UK Biobank only.

Locus ID rsID Chr:Position Gene Info EA/OA Consequence Trait Unconditional SNV analysis FINEMAP output Ref
EAF β P-value Common SNVs in top configuration PP of n SNVs log10BF
5 rs41300100 1:11908146 NPPA 0.82 G/C 5’ UTR SBP 0.010 -0.10 4.70x10-21 rs2982373, rs5066, rs55892892 0.55 122.50 9,2,79
18 rs756799918 1:153464738 RN7SL44P 0.89 T/C intergenic SBP 0.0004 0.26 4.30x10-7 rs12030242 0.36 27.49 14
28 rs1805090 1:230840034 AGT NA T/G missense SBP 0.0025 0.11 6.80x10-8 rs3889728, rs2493135 0.79 26.23 8
28 rs539645495 1:230860071 RP11-99J16__A.2 0.97 G/A intron, non-coding transcript DBP 0.0024 0.13 3.20x10-9 rs2493135, rs3889728 0.83 30.97 8
33 rs56152193 2:20925891 LDAH 0.76 C/G intron PP 0.0006 -0.23 8.10x10-7 rs7255 0.36 17.95 17, 16
55 rs759606582 2:178325956 AGPS 0.96 G/A intron PP 0.0003 0.29 1.90x10-7 rs56726187 0.57 7.48 16
72 rs555934473 3:48899332 SLC25A20 0.74 T/G intron DBP 0.0012 -0.17 2.50x10-6 rs36022378, rs6442105, rs6787229 0.25 35.71 17, 16, 6, 11
73 rs76920163 3:53857055 CHDH 0.96 G/T intron SBP 0.0059 0.10 3.80x10-13 rs3821843, rs7340705, rs11707607 0.58 29.45 18, 16
rs144980716 3:53776904 CACNA1D 0.91 A/G intron PP 0.0065 0.07 2.60x10-8 rs36031811, rs77347777 0.57 18.42
85 rs547947160 3:141607335 ATP1B3 0.75 G/A intron PP 0.0008 0.20 6.00x10-6 rs6773662 0.54 7.040 13
86 rs545513277 3:143113550 SLC9A9 0.70 A/G intron PP 0.0006 -0.24 6.90x10-6 rs1470121 0.56 11.97 16
92 rs186525102 3:185539249 IGF2BP2 0.85 A/G intron SBP 0.0086 -0.06 6.70x10-7 rs4687477 0.56 8.08 17
94 rs111620813 4:8293193 HTRA3 NA A/G missense PP 0.0100 -0.05 2.00x10-6 rs28734123 0.53 12.54 18
132 rs181585444 5:129963509 AC005741.2 0.83 C/T intergenic DBP 0.0003 -0.30 3.80x10-6 rs274555 0.55 10.70 14, 13
137 rs546907130 6:8156072 EEF1E1 0.90 T/C intergenic SBP 0.0017 -0.14 1.90x10-7 rs3812163 0.70 8.57 16
141 rs72854120 6:39248533 KCNK17 0.91 C/T intergenic SBP 0.0073 -0.08 3.10x10-9 rs2561396 0.76 10.49 16
141 rs72854118 6:39248092 KCNK17 0.91 G/A intergenic DBP 0.0072 -0.07 2.70x10-7 rs1155349 0.85 11.12 16
164 rs138890991 7:40804309 SUGCT 0.94 C/T intron PP 0.0100 0.06 1.60x10-7 rs17171703 0.77 19.08 17
179 rs561912039 7:150682950 NOS3 0.74 T/C intergenic DBP 0.0017 -0.13 6.40x10-6 rs3793341, rs3918226, rs6464165, rs7788497, rs891511 0.34 81.75 9,14,10
183 rs570342886 8:23380012 SLC25A37 0.85 C/G intergenic DBP 0.0001 -0.48 9.80x10-7 rs7842120 0.58 15.74 16
190 rs201196388 8:95265263 GEM NA T/C splice donor PP 0.0005 0.26 2.40x10-9 rs2170363 0.34 31.80 16, 78
193 rs532252660 8:120587297 ENPP2 0.79 T/C intron DBP 0.0025 -0.11 4.10x10-7 rs7017173 0.81 26.53 6
193 rs181416549 8:120678125 ENPP2 0.84 A/G intron PP 0.0026 0.20 5.10x10-21 rs35362581, rs80309268 0.95 113.21 6
212 rs138765972 10:20554597 PLXDC2 0.94 C/T intron DBP 0.0075 -0.07 4.40x10-8 rs61841505 0.49 9.06 16
219 rs192036851 10:64085523 RP11-120C12.3 0.92 C/T intergenic SBP 0.0062 0.06 6.40x10-6 rs10995311 0.28 19.55 16, 13
234 rs150090666 11:14865399 PDE3B NA T/C stop gained DBP 0.0010 -0.16 5.20x10-7 rs11023147, rs2597194 0.55 12.93 16
242 rs139620213 11:61444612 DAGLA 0.89 T/C upstream gene PP 0.0019 0.11 5.90x10-6 rs2524299 0.48 6.64 15
246 rs540659338 11:89183302 NOX4 0.85 C/T intron PP 0.0027 -0.14 2.60x10-10 rs2289125, rs494144 0.62 58.09 17, 16
260 rs186600986 12:53769106 SP1 0.91 A/G upstream gene PP 0.0030 -0.09 1.10x10-6 rs73099903 0.48 12.91 19
266 rs137937061 12:111001886 PPTC7 0.74 A/G intron SBP 0.0048 -0.09 1.30x10-6 rs9739637, rs35160901, rs10849937, rs3184504 0.34 55.74 16, 4, 5
268 rs190870203 12:123997554 RILPL1 0.85 T/G intron PP 0.0020 0.12 1.70x10-7 rs4759375 0.72 9.50 13
270 rs541261920 13:30571753 RP11-629E24.2 0.79 G/C intergenic SBP 0.0005 0.24 9.20x10-6 rs7338758 0.54 10.09 16
281 rs149250178 14:100143685 HHIPL1 0.75 A/G 3’ UTR DBP 0.0004 -0.29 2.30x10-6 rs7151887 0.51 7.93 16
299 rs139491786 16:2086421 SLC9A3r2 NA T/C missense DBP 0.0068 -0.12 1.60x10-20 rs28590346, rs34165865, rs62036942, rs8061324 0.57 50.80 16
304 rs2234710 16:30907835 BCL7C 0.79 T/G upstream gene SBP 0.0075 -0.08 2.30x10-9 - 0.52 6.29 17, 16
304* rs148753960 16:31047822 STX4 0.89 T/C intron PP 0.0099 -0.07 1.80x10-9 rs7500719 0.42 12.21 17, 16
317 rs756906294 17:42323081 SLC4A1 0.73 T/C downstream gene PP 0.0030 0.01 8.30x10-6 rs66838809 0.27 18.94 17
322 rs16946721 17:61106371 TANC2 0.91 G/A intron DBP 0.0100 -0.07 1.40x10-11 rs1867624, rs4291 0.51 20.91 17, 16
333 rs55670943 19:11441374 RAB3D 0.87 C/T intron SBP 0.0085 -0.10 2.10x10-17 rs12976810, rs4804157, rs160838, rs167479 0.78 85.45 1315
346* rs149972827 20:30413439 MYLK2 0.98 A/G intron SBP 0.0036 -0.10 6.20x10-9 - 0.85 9.86 16
362 rs115089782 22:42329632 CENPM 0.93 T/C intergenic SBP 0.0001 0.53 4.20x10-6 rs139919 0.44 14.12 17, 13

FINEMAP25 was used to identify the most likely causal variants within the known loci (defined in Supplementary Table 1) using the BOLT-LMM results in UKBB, the full detailed listing of results is provided in Supplementary Table 8. Locus ID, the known locus identifier provided in Supplementary Table 1; Chr:Position, chromosome and physical position in Build 37; Info, imputation information score, NA indicates that the SNV was genotyped and not imputed; EA/OA, Effect allele and other allele, respectively; AA, amino acid change; Effect, predicted effect of the listed SNV; EAF, effect allele frequency; β, single variant effect estimate for the rare variant in the BOLT-LMM analysis; P-value, the single variant P-value from the mixed model in the BOLT-LMM analysis; PP of n SNVs, the posterior probability of the number of causal variants; Log10BF, log10 Bayes factor for the top configuration; Gene, nearest gene; Trait, blood pressure trait analyzed; Ref, reference of the first reports of association in the listed region.

rs540659338 identified in UK Biobank in NOX4 has r 2 = 1 in 1000G EUR with rs56061986 identified in the GCTA analysis in Table 4.

*

Variants at these loci are in LD with GCTA variants (Table 2): at locus 304, r 2 = 0.876 between rs148753960 and rs61738491; at locus 346, r 2 = 0.952 between rs149972827 and rs45499294.

We note that, of 256 known variants identified without UKBB participants (Supplementary Table 1a), 229 replicated at P < 1.95 × 10-4 (Bonferroni adjusted for 256 variants) in UKBB.

Gene-based tests to identify BP-associated genes

To test whether rare variants in aggregate affect BP regulation, we performed gene-based tests for SBP, DBP, and PP using SKAT26 (https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/RareMETALS), including SNVs with MAF ≤ 0.01 that were predicted by VEP27 to have high or moderate impact (Methods). We performed separate analyses within the Stage 1 EAWAS and the UKBB RV-GWAS. Six genes in the EAWAS (FASTKD2, CPXM2, CENPJ, CDC42EP4, OTOP2, SCARF2) and two in the RV-GWAS (FRY, CENPJ) were associated with BP (P < 2.5 × 10-6, Bonferroni adjusted for ~20,000 genes) and were outside known and new BP loci (Supplementary Tables 1 and 9). To ensure these associations were not attributable to a single (sub-genome-wide significant) rare variant, we also performed SKAT tests conditioning on the variant with the smallest P-value in the gene (Methods and Supplementary Table 9). FRY had the smallest conditional P-value (P = 0.0004), but did not pass our pre-determined conditional significance threshold (conditional SKAT P ≤ 0.0001; Methods), suggesting that all gene associations are due to single (sub-genome-wide significant) rare variants and not due to the aggregation of multiple rare variants.

Amongst the known loci, five genes (NPR1, DBH, COL21A1, NOX4, GEM) were associated with BP due to multiple rare SNVs independent of the known common variant associations (conditional P ≤ 1 × 10-5; Methods, Supplementary Information, and Supplementary Table 9) confirming the findings in the single variant conditional analyses above (Supplementary Table 8).

We also performed gene-based tests using a MAF ≤ 0.05 threshold to assess sensitivity to the MAF ≤ 0.01 threshold. The results were concordant with the MAF ≤ 0.01 threshold findings, and two new genes (PLCB3 and CEP120) were associated with BP due to multiple SNVs and were robust to conditioning on the top SNV in each gene (Supplementary Information and Supplementary Table 9).

Rare variant BP associations

In total, across the EAWAS and the RV-GWAS, there were 32 new BP-associated rare variants spanning 18 new loci (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Of these 32, five (representing five loci) were genome-wide significant for HTN, 22 (ten loci) for SBP, 14 (six loci) for DBP, and 15 (ten loci) for PP (Supplementary Tables 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7). Ten of the new rare variants were missense. Within previously reported loci, there were 55 independent rare-variant associations (representing 40 loci) from either the EAWAS or RV-GWAS, making a total of 87 independent rare BP-associated SNVs. We identified 45 BP-associated genes, eight of which were due to multiple rare variants and independent of common variant associations (P < 1 × 10-4, Methods). Twenty-one rare variants were located within regulatory elements (e.g. enhancers), highlighting genetic influence on BP levels through gene expression (Fig. 2). The rare variants contributed to BP variance explained (Supplementary Information).

Power calculations are provided in the Supplementary Information and show that our study had 80% power to detect an effect of 0.039 SD for a MAF = 0.01 (Extended Data Fig. 1). As anticipated, given statistical power, some rare variants displayed larger effects on BP regulation than common variants (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Tables 3, 7, and 8); mean effects of rare SNVs for SBP and DBP were ~7.5 times larger than common variants (mean effect ~0.12 SD/minor allele for rare SNVs, ~0.035 SD/minor allele for low-frequency and ~0.016 SD/minor allele for common SNVs) and for PP were 8.5 times larger for rare variants compared to common (mean effect ~0.135 SD/minor allele for rare SNVs, ~0.04 SD/minor allele for low-frequency and ~0.016 SD/minor allele for common SNVs). Our study was exceptionally well-powered to detect common variants (MAF > 0.05) with similarly large effects but found none, consistent with earlier BP GWAS and genetic studies of some other common complex traits28,29,36.

Overlap of rare BP associations with monogenic BP genes

Twenty-four genes are reported in ClinVar to cause monogenic conditions with hypertension or hypotension as a primary phenotype. Of these, three (NR3C2, AGT, PDE3A) were associated with BP in SKAT tests in the EAWAS (P < 0.002, Bonferroni adjusted for 24 tests; Supplementary Table 10). These genes also had genome-wide significant SNV-BP associations in the EAWAS and/or RV-GWAS (Supplementary Table 10).

Functional annotation of rare BP-associated SNVs

None of the BP-associated rare SNVs (from known or novel loci) had been previously reported as expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) in any tissue (P > 5 × 10-8; Supplementary Table 11 and Methods). We used GTEx v7 data to examine in which tissues the genes closest to the rare BP-SNVs were expressed (Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 4). Many of the eQTL gene transcripts were expressed in BP-relevant tissues (e.g. kidney, heart, and arteries). We observed significant enrichment (Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.05) in liver, kidney, heart left ventricle, pancreas, and brain tissues, where the BP genes were down-regulated. In contrast, the BP genes were up-regulated in tibial artery, coronary artery, and aorta (Extended Data Fig. 3). There were 33 genes at 30 known loci with novel BP rare variants (from Supplementary Table 12); distinct known common BP variants at these known loci were eQTLs for 52% of these genes, providing additional evidence that the rare variants implicate plausible candidate genes (Supplementary Table 12).

We tested whether genes near rare BP-associated SNVs were enriched in gene sets from Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG, Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI), and Orphanet (Methods and Supplementary Table 4). These (rare variant) genes from both known and novel loci were enriched in BP-related pathways (Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.05; Methods and Supplementary Table 13), including “regulation of blood vessel size” (GO) and “renin secretion” (KEGG). Genes implicated by rare SNVs at known loci were enriched in “tissue remodeling” and “artery aorta” (GO). Genes implicated by rare SNVs at new BP-loci were enriched in rare circulatory system diseases (that include hypertension and rare renal diseases) in Orphanet.

Potential therapeutic insights from the rare BP-associated SNVs

Twenty-three of the genes near rare or low-frequency BP-associated variants in novel and known loci were potentially druggable as suggested by the “druggable genome”30 (Supplementary Information and Supplementary Tables 4 and 14). Six genes (four with rare variants) are already drug targets for CVD conditions, while 15 others are in development or used for other conditions. As an example, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is one of the principal homeostatic mechanisms for BP control, and aldosterone is the main mineralocorticoid (secreted by adrenal glands) and binds receptors, including NR3C2, resulting in sodium retention by the kidney and increased potassium excretion. Spironolactone is an aldosterone antagonist widely used in heart failure and as a potassium-sparing anti-hypertensive medication that targets NR3C2 (Open targets: https://www.opentargets.org).

Overlap of new BP-associations with metabolites

To identify novel BP variants that are metabolite QTLs, we performed in silico lookups of new sentinel and conditionally independent BP variants for association with 913 plasma metabolites measured using the Metabolon HD4 platform in ~14,000 individuals (Methods and Supplementary Table 4). Nine BP-associated variants were associated with 25 metabolites (P < 5 × 10-8) involved in carbohydrate, lipids, cofactors and vitamins, nucleotide (cysteine), and amino acid metabolism (Supplementary Table 15), while 11 were unknown.

We performed MR analyses to assess the influence of the 14 known metabolites (Supplementary Table 15) on BP. Lower levels of 3-methylglutarylcarnitine(2) (acyl carnitines involved in long-chain fatty acid metabolism in mitochondria and in leucine metabolism) were significantly associated with increased DBP (P < 0.003, 0.05/14 metabolites; Supplementary Table 16). There was no suggestion of reverse causation, i.e. BP did not affect 3-methylglutarylcarnitine(2) (P > 0.04; Supplementary Table 16). We further tested whether the association with 3-methylglutarylcarnitine(2) was due to pleiotropic effects of other metabolites in a multivariable MR framework, but found it was still causally associated with DBP (Supplementary Information and Supplementary Table 16).

New BP-associated SNVs are gene eQTLs across tissues

Sentinel variants from 66 new BP loci were associated (P < 5 × 10-8) with gene expression (or had r 2 > 0.8 in 1000G EUR with eQTLs) in publicly available databases (Methods and Supplementary Tables 4 and 11). We performed colocalization for 49 of the 66 BP loci (169 genes) with significant eQTLs available in GTEx v7, jointly across all 48 tissues and the BP traits using HyPrColoc31 (Methods), to verify that the eQTL and BP-SNV associations were due to the same SNVs and not due to LD or spurious pleiotropy32. The BP associations and eQTL colocalized at 17 BP loci with a single variant (posterior probability, PPa > 0.6), i.e. the expression and BP associations were due to the same underlying causal SNV (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 17). A further 10 loci had PPa > 0.6 for colocalization of BP associations and eQTL for multiple nearby genes (Fig. 3). Colocalization analyses were also performed for the 35 eQTLs in whole blood from the Framingham Heart Study, and five additional loci were consistent with a shared SNV between BP and gene expression (Supplementary Table 17).

Figure 3. Annotation of BP loci.

Figure 3

a, BP associations shared with eQTL from GTEx through multi-trait colocalization analyses. Expressed gene and the colocalized SNV are provided on the y-axis. BP trait and eQTL tissues are provided on the x-axis. The color indicates whether the candidate SNV increases BP and gene expression (brown), decreases BP and gene expression (orange), or has the inverse effects on BP and gene expression (blue). b, Enrichment of BP-associated SNVs in DNase I hypersensitivity hot spots (active chromatin). The top plot is for SBP, middle is for DBP, and bottom represents PP. Height of the bar indicates the fold enrichment in the listed tissues, with error bars representing the 95% confidence intervals. The colors represent the enrichment P-value.

Given the central role of the kidney in BP regulation, we investigated if BP-associated SNVs from the EAWAS were kidney eQTLs using TRANScriptome of renaL humAn TissuE study and The Cancer Genome Atlas study (n = 285; Methods 33,34). We observed significant eQTL associations (P < 5 x 10-8) at three newly identified BP loci (MFAP2, NFU1, and AAMDC, which were also identified in GTEx) and six at previously published loci (ERAP1, ERAP2, KIAA0141, NUDT13, RP11-582E3.6, and ZNF100; Supplementary Table 18).

New BP-associated SNVs are pQTLs

Eighteen BP loci had sentinel variants (or were in LD with BP SNVs, r 2 > 0.8 in 1000G EUR) that were also protein QTL (pQTL) in plasma. Across the 18 loci, BP-SNVs were pQTLs for 318 proteins (Supplementary Table 19). Low-frequency SNVs in MCL1 and LAMA5 were cis-pQTL for MCL1 and LAMA5, respectively. The BP-associated SNV, rs4660253, is a cis-pQTL and cis-eQTL for TIE1 across eight tissues in GTEx including heart (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 17). The DBP-associated SNV, rs7776054, is in strong LD with rs9373124, which is a trans-pQTL for erythropoietin, a hormone mainly synthesized by the kidneys, which has links to hypertension.

Pathway and enrichment analyses

The over-representation of rare and common BP SNVs in DNaseI-hypersensitive sites (DHS), which mark open chromatin, was tested using GARFIELD (Methods and Supplementary Table 4). The most significant enrichment in DHS hotspots for SBP-associated SNVs was in fetal heart tissues, with an ~3-fold enrichment compared to ~2-fold in adult heart (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Information). This difference in enrichment was also reflected in fetal muscle compared to adult muscle for SBP-associated SNVs. The most significant enrichment for DBP- and PP-associated SNVs (~3-fold) was in blood vessels (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Information). There was also enrichment across SBP, DBP and PP in fetal and adult kidney and fetal adrenal gland. In support, complementary enrichment analyses with FORGE (Methods) showed similar enrichments including in fetal kidney and fetal lung tissues (Z-score = 300; Supplementary Table 13 and Supplementary Information).

Mendelian randomization with CVD

Twenty-six new BP loci were also associated with cardiometabolic diseases and risk factors in PhenoScanner35 (http://www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk) (Methods, Fig. 3, Supplementary Information, and Supplementary Tables 4, 20, and 21). Given that BP is a key risk factor for CVD, we performed Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to assess the causal relationship of BP with any stroke (AS), ischemic stroke (IS), large artery stroke (LAS), cardio-embolic stroke (CE), small vessel stroke (SVS), and coronary artery disease (CAD) using all the distinct BP-associated SNVs from our study (both known and new; Supplementary Table 4 and Methods). BP was a predictor of all stroke types analyzed and CAD (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 4). Notably, SBP had the strongest effect on all CVD phenotypes, with the most profound effect on LAS, increasing risk by >2-fold per SD (Supplementary Table 22). BP had weakest effect on CE, which may reflect the greater role of atrial fibrillation versus BP in CE risk. Multi-variable MR analyses, including both SBP and DBP, showed that the effect of DBP attenuated to zero once SBP was accounted for (consistent with observational studies37), except for LAS (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 22, and Methods), where SBP/DBP had a suggestive inverse relationship, perhaps reflecting arterial stiffening. An inverse relationship between DBP and stroke above age 50 years has also been reported37.

Figure 4. Phenome-wide associations of the new BP loci.

Figure 4

a, Modified Fuji plot of the genome-wide significant associated SNVs from the Stage 2 EAWAS and Stage 2 rare variant GWAS (novel loci only). Each dot resents a novel locus where a conditionally independent variant or a variant in LD with the conditionally independent variant has been previously associated with one or more traits unrelated to blood pressure, and each circle represents different trait category (Supplementary Table 20). Locus annotation is plotted in the outer circle, and * sign denotes loci where the conditionally independent signal maps to a gene which is different to the one closest to the sentinel variant. b, Bar chart showing the distribution of traits (x-axis) and number of distinct BP-associated variants per trait (y-axis) that the SNVs in a are associated with. c, Bar chart of the number of traits included in b (y-axis) by trait category (x-axis). The color coding for a and b is relative to c.

Discussion

Unlike most previous BP studies that focused primarily on common variant associations, the novelty of this investigation is the extensive analysis of rare variants, both individually and in aggregate within a gene. Many of the new rare variants are located in genes that potentially have a role in BP regulation, as evidenced by support from existing mouse models (21 genes) and/or have previously been implicated in monogenic disorders (11 genes) whose symptoms include hyper-/hypotension or impaired cardiac function/development (Supplementary Table 12). For example, rs139600783 (p.Pro274Ser) was associated with increased DBP and is located in the ARHGAP31 gene that causes Adams-Oliver syndrome, which can be accompanied by pulmonary hypertension and heart defects. A further three (of the six) genes that cause Adams-Oliver syndrome are located in BP-associated loci (DLL4 16, DOCK6 13,15, and NOTCH1, a new BP locus). A missense variant rs200383755 (p.Ser19Trp, predicted deleterious by SIFT), located in the GATA5, encoding a transcription factor, is associated with increased SBP and DBP. GATA5 mutations cause congenital heart defects, including bicuspid aortic valve and atrial fibrillation, while a Gata5-null mouse model had increased SBP and DBP at 90 days38.

Within the known loci, we detected new rare variant associations at several candidate genes, e.g. a rare missense SNV rs1805090 (MAF = 0.0023) in the angiotensinogen (AGT) gene was associated with increased BP independently of the known common variant association. AGT is known to have an important role in BP regulation, and the variant is predicted to be among the top 1% of most deleterious substitutions39. The established common variant at FOXS1 was not associated with BP in the conditional analysis, but new rare variants in FOXS1 (rs45499294, p.Glu74Lys; MAF = 0.0037) and MYLK2 (rs149972827; MAF = 0.0036; Supplementary Information) were associated with BP. Two BP-associated SNVs (rs145502455, p.Ile806Val; rs117874826, p.Glu564Ala) highlight PLCB3 as a candidate gene. Phospholipase C is a key enzyme in phosphoinositide metabolism, with PLCB3 as the major isoform in macrophages40, and a negative regulator of VEGF-mediated vascular permeability, a key process in ischemic disease and cancer41. PLCβ3 deficiency is associated with decreased atherogenesis, increased macrophage apoptosis in atherosclerotic lesions, and increased sensitivity to apoptotic induction in vitro 40. Variants in SOS2 have previously been linked to kidney development/function42 and also cause Noonan syndromes 1 and 9, which are rare inherited conditions characterized by craniofacial dysmorphic features and congenital heart defects, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy43. Here we report the rare variant rs72681869 (p.Arg191Pro) in SOS2 as associated with SBP, DBP, PP, and HTN, highlighting SOS2 as a candidate gene. Previously, we identified a rare missense BP-associated variant in RRAS, a gene causing Noonan syndrome13. Our discoveries of rare missense variants at known BP loci provide additional support for candidate genes at these loci.

We report new low-frequency variant associations, such as the missense variant rs45573936 (T>C, Ile216Thr) in SLC29A1. The minor allele is associated with both decreased SBP and DBP (Table 1), and the SNV has been shown to affect the function of the encoded protein, equilibrative nucleoside transporter (ENT1)44. Best et al.45 showed that loss of function of ENT1 caused an (~2.75-fold) increase in plasma adenosine and (~15%) lower BP in mice. Drugs, including dipyridamole and S-(4-Nitrobenzyl)-6-thioinosine (NBTI, NBMPR), are currently used as ENT1 inhibitors for their anti-cancer, anti-cardio, and neuro-protective properties, and our results provide the genetic evidence to indicate that ENT1 inhibition might lower BP in humans.

We found greater enrichment of SBP-associated SNVs in DHS hotspots in fetal vs. adult heart muscle tissue. These results suggest that BP-associated SNVs may influence the expression of genes that are critical for fetal development of the heart. This is consistent with our finding that some BP-associated genes also cause congenial heart defects (see above). Furthermore, de novo mutations in genes with high expression in the developing heart, as well as in genes that encode chromatin marks that regulate key developmental genes, have previously been shown to be enriched in congenital heart disease patients46,47. A recent study of atrial fibrillation genetics, for which BP is a risk factor, described enrichment in DHS in fetal heart48. The authors hypothesized that the corresponding genes acting during fetal development increase risk of atrial fibrillation48. Together, these data suggest that early development and/or remodeling of cardiac tissues may be an important driver of BP regulation later in life.

The BP measures we have investigated here are correlated; amongst the 107 new genetic BP loci, only two are genome-wide significant across all four BP traits (RP11-284M14.1 and VTN; Fig. 2). None of the new loci were unique to HTN (Fig. 2), perhaps as HTN is derived from SBP and DBP, or perhaps due to reduced statistical power for a binary trait. The results from our study indicate rare BP-associated variants contribute to BP variability in the general population, and their identification has provided information on new candidate genes and potential causal pathways. We have primarily focused on the exome array, which is limited. Future studies using both exome and whole genome sequencing in population cohorts (e.g. UKBB and TOPMed) will lead to identification of further rare variant associations and may advance the identification of causal BP genes across the ~1,000 reported BP loci.

Online Methods

The statistical methods used and analytical packages used are further detailed in the Life Sciences Reporting Summary.

Participants

The cohorts contributing to Stage 1 of the EAWAS comprised 92 studies from four consortia (CHARGE, CHD Exome+, GoT2D:T2DGenes, ExomeBP), and UK Biobank (UKBB) totalling 870,217 individuals of European (EUR, n = 810,865), African Ancestry (AA, n = 21,077), South Asian (SAS, n = 33,689), and Hispanic (HIS, n = 4,586) ancestries. Study-specific characteristics, sample quality control and descriptive statistics for the new studies are provided in Supplementary Tables 23 and 24 (and in Supplementary Table 1 and 2 of Surendran et al. 13 (https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n10/extref/ng.3654-S2.xlsx) and Supplementary Table 20 of Liu et al. 14 (https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n10/extref/ng.3660-S1.pdf) for the previously published studies).

For EAWAS, summary association statistics were requested (for the SNVs with P < 5 × 10-8, outside of known BP loci) from the following cohorts: 127,478 Icelanders from deCODE; 225,113 EUR, 63,490 AA, 22,802 HIS, 2,695 NAm (Native Americans), and 4,792 EAS (East Asians) from the Million Veterans Program (MVP); and 1,505 EUR and 792 AA individuals from the Genetic Epidemiology Network of Arteriopathy (GENOA). In total, following the data request, 448,667 individuals of EUR (n = 354,096), AA (n = 63,282), HIS (n = 22,802), NAm (n = 2,695), and EAS (n = 4,792) ancestries were available for meta-analyses with Stage 1. Study specific characteristics are provided in Supplementary Tables 23 and 24.

Stage 1 of the RV-GWAS used data from 445,360 EUR individuals from UKBB (Supplementary Tables 23 and 24, Supplementary Information), and rare variants were followed up in a data request involving 225,112 EUR individuals from MVP.

All participants provided written informed consent, and the studies were approved by their local research ethics committees and/or institutional review boards. The BioVU biorepository performed DNA extraction on discarded blood collected during routine clinical testing, and linked to de-identified medical records.

Phenotypes

SBP, DBP, PP and HTN were analyzed. Details of the phenotype measures for the previously published studies can be found in the Supplementary Information of the Surendran et al. and Liu et al. papers (https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n10/extref/ng.3654-S2.xlsx; https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n10/extref/ng.3660-S1.pdf), and further details of the additional studies are provided in Supplementary Table 24 and Supplementary Information. Typically, the average of two baseline measurements of SBP and DBP were used. For individuals known to be taking BP-lowering medication, 15 and 10 mmHg were added to the raw SBP and DBP values, respectively, to obtain medication-adjusted values49. PP was defined as SBP minus DBP after medication adjustment. For HTN, individuals were classified as hypertensive cases if they satisfied at least one of the following criteria: (i) SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, (ii) DBP ≥ 90 mmHg, or (iii) use of antihypertensive or BP-lowering medication. All other individuals were considered controls. Further information on study-specific BP measurements is provided in Supplementary Table 24. Residuals from the null model obtained after regressing the medication-adjusted trait on the covariates (age, age2, sex, BMI, principal components (PCs) to adjust for population stratification, in addition to any study-specific covariates) within a linear regression model were ranked and inverse normalized (Supplementary Information).

Genotyping

The majority of the studies were genotyped using one of the Illumina HumanExome BeadChip arrays (Supplementary Table 24). An exome chip quality control standard operating procedure (SOP: https://ruderd02.u.hpc.mssm.edu/Exome-chip-QC.pdf) developed by A. Mahajan, N.R.R. and N.W.R. at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford was used by some studies for genotype calling and quality control, while the CHARGE implemented an alternative approach50 (Supplementary Table 24 and Supplementary Tables 3 and 21, respectively, of Surendran et al.13 and Liu et al.14). All genotypes were aligned to the plus strand of the human genome reference sequence (build 37) before any analyses and any unresolved mappings were removed. UKBB, MVP, and deCODE were genotyped using GWAS arrays (Supplementary Table 24).

Exome array meta-analyses

Study-specific analyses were performed to test for the association of 247,315 SNVs with SBP, DBP, PP and HTN in 810,865 individuals of European ancestry (75 EUR studies) and additionally in 59,352 individuals of non-European ancestry comprising of SAS (5 studies), AA (10 studies), and HIS (2 studies) individuals (Supplementary Information). Study-specific association summaries were meta-analyzed in Stage 1 using an inverse-variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analyses implemented in METAL52. Fixed effect and random effects meta-analyses showed concordant results (Supplementary Table 2). For the binary trait (HTN), we performed sample-size-weighted meta-analysis.

Minimal inflation in the association test statistic, λ, was observed (λ = 1.18 for SBP, 1.20 for DBP, 1.18 for PP, and 1.18 for HTN in the EUR meta-analyses; and λ = 1.19 for SBP, 1.20 for DBP, 1.18 for PP, and 1.16 for HTN in the PA meta-analyses). The meta-analyses were performed independently at three centres, and results were found to be concordant across the centres. Following Stage 1, SNVs outside of known BP-associated regions with P < 5 × 10-8 were looked up in individuals from the MVP, deCODE, and GENOA studies (data request). Two meta-analyses of the three additional studies for each trait were performed by two independent analysts, one involving EUR individuals (354,096 participants) only and one PA (448,667 participants). Likewise, two Stage 2 meta-analyses for each trait were performed by two independent analysts, one EUR (1,167,961 participants) and one PA (1,318,884 participants). SNVs with (a conservative) P < 5 × 10-8 in the Stage 2 meta-analysis, with consistent directions of effect in Stage 1 and data request studies and no evidence of heterogeneity (P > 0.0001), were considered potentially novel53.

RV-GWAS

Rare SNVs with P < 5 × 10-8 (a widely accepted significance threshold54,55) in the inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis of UKBB and MVP, with consistent directions of effect in Stage 1 and MVP and no evidence of heterogeneity (P > 0.0001), were considered potentially novel.

Quality control

As part of the sample QC, plots comparing inverse of the standard error as a function of the square root of study sample size for all studies were manually reviewed for each trait, and phenotype-specific study outliers were excluded. In addition, inflation of test static was manually reviewed for each study and for each phenotype and confirmed minimal or no inflation prior to Stage 1 meta-analyses. For EAWAS and RV-GWAS, we performed our own QC for genotyped variants as we were specifically interested in rare variants and knew that these were most vulnerable to clustering errors. Full details of UKBB QC are provided in the Supplementary Note. To ensure that the variants we reported are not influenced by technical artefacts and not specific to a certain ancestry, we ensured that there was no heterogeneity and also that the variants had consistent direction of effects between Stage 1 and the data request studies (MVP+deCODE+GENOA). In addition, we ensured that the association was not driven by a single study. For variants reported in RV-GWAS and EAWAS, we reviewed the cluster plots for clustering artefacts and removed poorly clustered variants. Lastly, for RV-GWAS, if the variant was available in UKBB whole exome data (~50K individuals), we ensured that the minor allele frequencies were consistent with the imputed MAF despite restricting the reporting of only variant with a good imputation quality (INFO > 0.8).

Definition of known loci

For each known variant, pairwise LD was calculated between the known variant and all variants within the 4-Mb region in the 1000 Genomes phase 3 data restricted to samples of European (EUR) ancestry. Variants with r 2 > 0.1 were used to define a window around the known variant. The region start and end were defined as the minimum position and maximum position of variants in LD within the window (r 2 > 0.1), respectively. Twelve variants were not in 1000 Genomes, and for these variants, a 500-kb window around the known variant was used. The window was extended by a further 50 kb and overlapping regions were merged (Supplementary Table 1).

Conditional analyses

Within the new BP loci, we defined a region based on LD (Supplementary Table 1) within which conditional analysis was performed (five variants were not in the 1000G panel, and for these we established a 500-kb window definition). Conditional and joint association analysis as implemented in Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA v1.91.4)22 was performed using the EAWAS results to identify independent genetic variants associated with BP traits within newly identified and known regions available in the exome array. We restricted this analysis to the summary data from Stage 1 EUR EAWAS meta-analyses (n = 810,865) as LD patterns were modelled using individual level genotype data from 57,718 EUR individuals from the CHD Exome+ consortium. Variants with P joint < 1 × 10-6 were considered conditionally independent.

We used the UKBB GWAS results and FINEMAP25 v1.1 to fine-map the known BP-associated regions in order to identify rare variants that are associated with BP independently of the known common variants (Supplementary Note; due to lack of statistical power, we did not use UKBB GWAS data alone to perform conditional analyses within the new EAWAS loci). For each known region, we calculated pairwise Pearson correlation for all SNVs within a 5-Mb window of the known SNVs using LDstore v1.1. Z-scores calculated in the UKBB single-variant association analyses were provided as input to FINEMAP along with the correlation matrix for the region. We selected the configuration with the largest Bayes Factor (BF) and largest posterior probability as the most likely causal SNVs. We considered causal SNVs to be significant if the configuration cleared a threshold of log10BF > 5 and if the variants in the configuration had an unconditional association of P ≤ 1 × 10-6. We examined the validity of the SNVs identified for the most likely configuration by checking marginal association P-values and LD (r 2) within UKBB between the selected variants. For loci that included rare variants identified by FINEMAP, we validated the selected configuration using a linear regression model in R.

Gene-based tests

Gene-based tests were performed using the sequence kernel association test (SKAT)26 as implemented in the rareMETALS package version 7.1 (https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/RareMETALS) (which allows for the variants to have different directions and magnitudes of effect) to test whether rare variants in aggregate within a gene are associated with BP traits. For the EAWAS, two gene-based meta-analyses were performed for inverse-normal transformed DBP, SBP, and PP, one of EUR and a second PA including all studies with single-variant association results and genotype covariance matrices (up to 691,476 and 749,563 individuals from 71 and 88 studies were included in the EUR and PA gene-based meta-analyses, respectively).

In UKBB, we considered summary association results from 364,510 unrelated individuals only. We annotated all SNVs on the exome array using VEP27. A total of 15,884 (EUR) and 15,997 genes (PA) with two or more variants with MAF ≤ 0.01 annotated with VEP as high or moderate effects were tested. The significance threshold was set at P < 2.5 × 10-6 (Bonferroni adjusted for ~20,000 genes).

A series of conditional gene-based tests were performed for each significant gene. To verify the gene association was due to more than one variant (and not due to a single sub-genome-wide significance threshold variant), gene tests were conditioned on the variant with the smallest P-value in the gene (top variant). Genes with P conditional < 1 × 10-4 were considered significant, which is in line with locus-specific conditional analyses used in other studies56. In order to ensure that gene associations located in known or newly identified BP regions (Supplementary Note and Supplementary Table 1) were not attributable to common BP-associated variants, analyses were conditioned on the conditionally independent known/novel common variants identified using GCTA within the known or novel regions, respectively, for the EAWAS (or identified using FINEMAP for the GWAS). Genes mapping to either known or novel loci with P conditional < 1 × 10-5, were considered significant. The P-value to identify gene-based association not driven by a single variant was set in advance of performing gene-based tests and was based on an estimation of the potential number of genes that could be associated with BP.

Mendelian randomization with CVDs

We used two-sample MR to test for causal associations between BP traits and any stroke (AS), any ischemic stroke (IS), large artery stroke (LAS), cardioembolic stroke (CE), small vessel stroke (SVS), and coronary artery disease (CAD). All the new and known BP-associated SNVs (including conditionally independent SNVs) listed in Supplementary Tables 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, were used as instrumental variables (IVs). In addition to trait specific analyses, we performed an analysis of “generic” BP, in which we used the SNVs associated with any of the traits. Where variants were associated with multiple BP traits, we extracted the association statistics for the trait with the smallest P-value (or the largest posterior probability for the known loci). To exclude potentially invalid (pleiotropic) genetic instruments, we used PhenoScanner35 to identify SNVs associated with CVD risk factors, cholesterol (LDL/HDL/triglycerides (TG)), smoking, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (Supplementary Table 22) and removed these from the list of IVs. We extracted estimates for the associations of the selected instruments with each of the stroke subtypes from the MEGASTROKE PA GWAS results (67,162 cases; 454,450 controls)63 and from a recent GWAS for CAD64. We applied a Bonferroni correction (P < 0.05/6 = 0.0083) to account for the number of CVD traits. We used the inverse-variance weighting method with a multiplicative random-effects because we had hundreds of IVs for BP65. We performed MR-Egger regression, which generates valid estimates even if not all the genetic instruments are valid, as long as the Instrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect assumption holds66. We note that MR-Egger has been shown to be conservative66, but has the useful property that the MR-Egger-intercept can give an indication of (unbalanced) pleiotropy, which allowed us to test for pleiotropy amongst the IVs. We used MR-PRESSO to detect outlier IVs67. To assess instrument strength, we computed the F-statistic68 for the association of genetic variants with SBP, DBP and PP, respectively (Supplementary Information and Supplementary Table 22). We also assessed heterogeneity using the Q-statistic. Although these methods may have different statistical power, the rationale is that, if these methods give a similar conclusion regarding the association of BP and CVD, then we are more confident in inferring that the positive results are unlikely to be driven by violation of the MR assumptions69.

Moreover, we used multivariable MR (mvMR) to estimate the effect of multiple variables on the outcome65,70. This is useful when two or more correlated risk factors are of interest, e.g. SBP and DBP, and may help to understand whether both risk factors exert a causal effect on the outcome, or whether one exerts a leading effect on the outcome. Thus, we used multiple genetic variants associated with SBP and DBP to simultaneously estimate the causal effect of SBP and DBP on CVDs.

All analyses were performed using R version 3.4.2 with R packages ‘TwoSampleMR’ and ‘MendelianRandomization’ and “MRPRESSO”.

Metabolite quantitative trait loci and Mendelian randomization analyses

Plasma metabolites were measured in up to 8,455 EUR individuals from the INTERVAL study71,72 and up to 5,841 EUR individuals from EPIC-Norfolk73 using the Metabolon HD4 platform. In both studies, 913 metabolites passed QC and were analyzed for association with ~17 million rare and common genetic variants. Genetic variants were genotyped using the Affymetrix Axiom UK Biobank array and imputed using the UK10K+1000Genomes or the HRC reference panel. Variants with INFO > 0.3 and MAC > 10 were analyzed. Phenotypes were log-transformed within each study, and standardized residuals from a linear model adjusted for study-specific covariates were calculated prior to the genetic analysis. Study-level genetic analysis was performed using linear mixed models implemented in BOLT-LMM to account for relatedness within each study, and the study-level association summaries were meta-analyzed using METAL prior to the lookup of novel BP variants for association with metabolite levels.

The same methodology for MR analyses as implemented for CVDs was also adopted to test the effects of metabolites on BP. Causal analyses were restricted to the list of 14 metabolites that overlapped our BP-associations and were known. We used a Bonferroni significance threshold (P < 0.05/14 = 0.0036), adjusting for the number of metabolites being tested. We also tested for a reverse causal effect of BP on metabolite levels. The IVs for the BP traits were the same as those used for MR with CVDs. For the mvMR analysis of metabolites with BP, we included 3-methylglutarylcarnitine(2) and the three metabolites that shared at least one IV with 3-methylglutarylcarnitine(2) in the mvMR model. A union set of genetic IVs for all the metabolites were used in the mvMR model to simultaneously estimate the effect size of each metabolite on DBP.

Colocalization of BP associations with eQTLs

Details of kidney-specific eQTL are provided in Supplementary Information. Using the phenoscanner lookups to prioritize BP regions with eQTLs in GTEx version 7, we performed joint colocalization analysis with the HyPrColoc package in R31 (https://github.com/jrs95/hyprcoloc; regional colocalization plots, https://github.com/jrs95/gassocplot). HyPrColoc approximates the COLOC method developed by Giambartolomei et al.62 and extends it to allow colocalization analyses to be performed jointly across many traits simultaneously and pinpoint candidate shared SNV(s). Analyses were restricted to SNVs present in all the datasets used (for GTEx data this was 1 Mb upstream and downstream of the center of the gene probe), data were aligned to the same human genome build 37 and strand, and a similar prior structure as the colocalization analysis with cardiometabolic traits was used (P = 0.0001 and γ = 0.99).

Gene set enrichment analyses

In total, 4,993 GO biological process, 952 GO molecular function, 678 GO cellular component, 53 GTEx, 301 KEGG, 9537 MGI, and 2645 Orphanet gene sets were used for enrichment analyses (Supplementary Information).

We restricted these analyses to the rare BP-associated SNVs (Supplementary Table 4). For each set of gene sets, the significance of the enrichment of the genetically identified BP genes was assessed as the Fisher’s exact test for the over-abundance of BP genes in the designated gene set based on a background of all human protein coding genes or, in the case of the MGI gene sets, a background of all human protein-coding genes with an available knock-out phenotype in the MGI database.

Results were deemed significant if after multiple testing correction for the number of gene sets in the specific set of gene sets the adjusted P-value < 0.05. Results were deemed suggestive if the adjusted P-value was between 0.05 and 0.1.

Functional enrichment using BP-associated variants

To assess enrichment of GWAS variants associated with the BP traits in regulatory and functional regions in a wide range of cell and tissue types, we used GWAS Analysis of Regulatory or Functional Information Enrichment with LD Correction (GARFIELD). The GARFIELD method has been described extensively elsewhere76,77. In brief, GARFIELD takes a non-parametric approach that requires GWAS summary statistics as input. It performs the following steps: (i) LD-pruning of input variants; (ii) calculation of the fold enrichment of various regulatory/functional elements; and (iii) testing these for statistical significance by permutation testing at various GWAS significance levels, accounting for MAF, the distance to the nearest transcription start site, and the number of LD proxies of the GWAS variants. We used the SNVs from the full UKBB GWAS of BP traits as input to GARFIELD (Supplementary Table 4).

Extended Data

Extended Data Fig. 1. Power estimation for stage 2 meta-analyses.

Extended Data Fig. 1

Power calculations were performed assuming that, for any given variant, there were 1,318,884 individuals for EAWAS PA analyses, 1,164,961 participants for EAWAS EA analyses, and 670,472 participants for RV-GWAS analyses. Calculations were performed in R (https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/Power_Calculations:_Quantitative_Traits).

Extended Data Fig. 2. Expression of genes implicated by the rare SNVs in GTEx v7 tissues.

Extended Data Fig. 2

We used FUMA GWAS to perform these analyses. We included genes closest to the identified rare variants from the EAWAS and the RV-GWAS.

Extended Data Fig. 3. Tissue enrichment of rare variant gene expression levels in GTEx v7.

Extended Data Fig. 3

We used FUMA GWAS to perform these analyses. We included genes closest to the identified rare variants from the EAWAS and the RV-GWAS.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables

Figure 5. Causal association of BP with stroke and coronary artery disease.

Figure 5

Mendelian randomization analyses of the effect of blood pressure on stroke and coronary artery disease. a, Univariable analyses. b, Multivariable analyses (Methods). Analyses were performed using summary association statistics (Methods). The causal estimates are on the odds ratio (OR) scale (the square in the plot). The whiskers on the plots are the 95% confidence intervals for these ORs. Results on the standard deviation scale are provided in Supplementary Table 22. The genetic variants for the estimation of the causal effects in this plot are sets of SNVs after removing the confounding SNVs and invalid instrumental variant. OR, odds ratio (P-value from the inverse variance weighted two sample Mendelian randomization method). n, number of disease cases.

Acknowledgements

P. Surendran is supported by a Rutherford Fund Fellowship from the Medical Research Council grant MR/S003746/1. N. Lahrouchi is supported by the Foundation “De Drie Lichten” in The Netherlands and the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation (CVON2012-10 PREDICT and CVON2018-30 PREDICT2). J. N. Hellwege was supported by the Vanderbilt Molecular and Genetic Epidemiology of Cancer (MAGEC) Training Program (T32CA160056, PI X.-O. Shu). N. Franceschini is supported by the National Institute of Health awards HL140385, MD012765 and DK117445. F. W. Asselbergs is supported by UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. P. Deloukas’s work was supported by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) grant RG/14/5/30893. R. J. F. Loos is funded by R01DK110113, U01HG007417, R01DK101855, R01DK107786. C. Hayward is supported by an MRC University Unit Programme Grant MC_UU_00007/10 (QTL in Health and Disease) and MRC University Unit Programme Grant MC_PC_U127592696. M. I. McCarthy* is a Wellcome Senior Investigator (098381; 212259) and an NIHR Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0617-10090). The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), and by the Wellcome (090532, 106130, 098381, 203141, 212259). T. Ferreira* is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. M. Tomaszewski is supported by British Heart Foundation (PG/17/35/33001 and PG/19/16/34270) and Kidney Research UK (RP_017_20180302). J. Danesh* is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Senior Investigator Award). C. M. Lindgren* is supported by the Li Ka Shing Foundation, WT-SSI/John Fell funds and by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, by Widenlife and NIH (5P50HD028138-27). J. M. M. Howson* was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust).

*The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Full acknowledgements and full lists of consortia members are provided in the Supplementary Note.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

These authors contributed to the drafting of the manuscript: P. Surendran, E.V.F., N.L., I.N., A.C.M., B.M.P., E.B., D.I.C., D.L., P.B.M., and J.M.M.H. The following authors were involved in the central analyses: P. Surendran, E.V.F., N.L., I.N., S. Karthikeyan, J. Cook, D.J.L., F.D., C.N.-C., P.B.M., and J.M.M.H. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. The following authors performed bioinformatics analyses: S. Karthikeyan, L.C., B.M., C.Y., A.T.K., J.H.C., B.P.P., I.D.S., C.P.C., J.M.E., A.A., E.B.F., C.N.F., L.A.L., D.S.P., J.R.S., S. Burgess, M.K., J.P., E.Y., M.R.B., M.T., P.B.M., and J.M.M.H. Study Analysts: J.N.H., A.G., V.T., G. Thorleifsson, B.P.P., J.M.E., A.A., P.L.A., L.F.B., J.C.B., V.S.B., J.A.B., E.W.D., F.D., S.F.N., J.D.F., C.F., T.F., H.G., O.G., F.G., D.F.G., X.G., S.E.H., A.S.H., A.H., J.E.H., S.H., S. Kanoni, J.K., M.G.L., R.L., J. Lindström, Y.L., J. Luan, A.M., G.M., N.G.M., H.M., C.M., D.M., M. Müller-Nurasyid, G.P., M.P., A.P., R. Rainer, M. Richard, T.G.R., N. Sepúlveda, X.S., A.V.S., J.A.S., A.S., P. Sulem, S. Thériault, U.T., S. Trompet, T.V.V., D.R.V.E., G.V., S.W., S.M.W., J.Y., R.Y., B.Y., W. Zhang, J.Z., W. Zhao (UPenn), W. Zhao (UMich), E.E., L.L.B., K.C., T.L., I.L., M.N., N.W.R., M. Reedik, T.S., I.T., H.R.W., H.Z., S.F., B.J.H., M.I.M., T.D.S., A.S.B., H.H., C. Liu, A.K.M., A.P.M., A.C.M., D.I.C., and J.M.M.H. Study Principal Investigators (PI) or Co-PIs: N.F., D.O.M., I.B., P.S.B., C.C., J. Connell, A.F.D., J.M.G., N.G., T.H., F. Karpe, H.A.K., K.K., M. Moitry, C.NA.P., O. Pedersen, N.P., A.R., F.R., P. J. Sever, E. Tõnu, C.J.W., P. Almgren, P. Amouyel, F.W.A., A.I.B., M.B., M.L.B., E.P.B., J.E.B., J.C.C., Y.I.C., R.C., D.C., A.C., G.D.S., R.A.d.B., I.J.D., G.D., P.D., E.D.A., P.E., S.B.F., J.F., I.F., M.F., P.W.F., P.F., G.G., T.R.G., L.G., V.G., T.B.H., C.H., B.J.H., K.H., E.I., T.J., M.J., J.W.J., S.L.K., F. Kee, J.S.K., C.K., L.J.L., L. Lind, R.J.F.L., A.a.S.M., L.M., M.I.M., O.M., K.L.M., A.D.M., B.G.N., M.O., C.J.P., S.P., W.P., O. Polasek, D.J.P., A.M.P., M.A.P., C.L.R., K.R., P.M.R., O.R., F.R.R., J.I.R., I.R., V.S., N.J.S., N. Sattar, W.H.S., B.H.S., N. Soranzo, T.D.S., J.M.S., S.S., K.D.T., L.A.T., N.J.T., M.D.T., P.v.d.H., P.v.d.M., V.S.R., N.V., J.V., U.V., D.R. Weir, E.Z., F.J.C., N.J.W., C. Langenberg, M.T., A.S.B., M.J.C., J.D., T.L.E., A.M.H., C.M.L., A.P.M., C.O., B.M.P., D.S., K.S., E.B., D.I.C., D.L., P.B.M., and J.M.M.H. Study phenotyping: A.T.K., J.D.F., M.G.L., Y.L., S.A., E.A., S. Blankenberg, R.d.M., M.D., G.E., A.F., M.L.G.-G., G. Hallmans, G. Heiss, P.J., E.K., A.K., K.K., T.L., L. Lannfelt, W.L., L.W.M., M.N., G.J.P., K.L.R., M. Reedik, F.R., R. Rettig, J.R., P.J. Schreiner, E.L.S., J.S., G. Thorgeirsson, E. Trabetti, T.T., S.T.T., I.T., I.V., A.V., P. Amouyel, J.E.B., J.C.C., Y.I.C., R.A.d.B., J.F., G.G., V.G., B.J.H., F. Kee, J.S.K., L. Lind, R.J.F.L., O.M., W.P., O. Polasek, P.M.R., I.R., N. Sattar, W.H.S., T.D.S., J.M.S., P.v.d.H., P.v.d.M., N.V., J.V., D.R. Weir, B.M.P., D.I.C., and D.L.

Competing Interests

The following authors affiliated with deCODE genetics/Amgen Inc. are employed by the company: Vinicius Tragante, Gudmar Thorleifsson, Anna Helgadottir, Patrick Sulem, Gudmundur Thorgeirsson, Hilma Holm, Daniel F. Gudbjartsson, Unnur Thorsteinsdottir, Kari Stefansson. Bruce Psaty serves on the Steering Committee of the Yale Open Data Access Project funded by Johnson & Johnson. John Danesh reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants from Pfizer, and grants from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Adam Butterworth reports grants outside of this work from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and personal fees from Novartis. Veikko Salomaa has participated in a conference trip sponsored by Novo Nordisk and received an honorarium for participating in an advisor board meeting, outside the present study. He also has ongoing research collaboration with Bayer Ltd, outside the present study. Dennis Mook-Kanamori is a part-time clinical research consultant for Metabolon, Inc. Mark I. McCarthy has served on advisory panels for Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Zoe Global, has received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, and research funding from Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Servier, and Takeda. As of June 2019, he is an employee of Genentech, and a holder of Roche stock. Eric B. Fauman is an employee of and owns stock in Pfizer, Inc. Mark J. Caulfield is Chief Scientist for Genomics England, a UK Government company. Joanna M. M. Howson became a full-time employee of Novo Nordisk, and I.N. became a full-time employee of Gilead during revision of the manuscript.

Contributor Information

LifeLines Cohort Study:

Rudolf A. de Boer, Pim van der Harst, Peter van der Meer, and Niek Verweij

EPIC-CVD:

Adam S. Butterworth and John Danesh

EPIC-InterAct:

Claudia Langenberg, Panos Deloukas, Mark I. McCarthy, Paul W. Franks, Olov Rolandsson, and Nicholas J. Wareham

Understanding Society Scientific Group:

Bram P. Prins and Eleftheria Zeggini

Million Veteran Program:

Jacklyn N. Hellwege, Ayush Giri, Digna R. Velez Edwards, Kelly Cho, J. Michael Gaziano, Csaba P. Kovesdy, Yan V. Sun, Philip S. Tsao, Peter W. F. Wilson, Todd L. Edwards, Adriana M. Hung, and Christopher J. O'Donnell

Data availability

Summary association results for all the traits are available for download from: https://app.box.com/s/1ev9iakptips70k8t4cm8j347if0ef2u and from the CHARGE dbGaP Summary site, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/) accession number phs000930.

References

  • 1.Forouzanfar MH, et al. Global burden of hypertension and systolic blood pressure of at least 110 to 115 mm Hg, 1990-2015. JAMA. 2017;317:165–182. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Newton-Cheh C, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies eight loci associated with blood pressure. Nat Genet. 2009;41:666–676. doi: 10.1038/ng.361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cho YS, et al. A large-scale genome-wide association study of Asian populations uncovers genetic factors influencing eight quantitative traits. Nat Genet. 2009;41:527–534. doi: 10.1038/ng.357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Levy D, et al. Genome-wide association study of blood pressure and hypertension. Nat Genet. 2009;41:677–687. doi: 10.1038/ng.384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kato N, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies common variants associated with blood pressure variation in east Asians. Nat Genet. 2011;43:531–538. doi: 10.1038/ng.834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wain LV, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies six new loci influencing pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure. Nat Genet. 2011;43:1005–1011. doi: 10.1038/ng.922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.International Consortium for Blood Pressure Genome-Wide Association Studies et al. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature. 2011;478:103–109. doi: 10.1038/nature10405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Johnson AD, et al. Association of hypertension drug target genes with blood pressure and hypertension in 86,588 individuals. Hypertension. 2011;57:903–910. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.158667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Johnson T, et al. Blood pressure loci identified with a gene-centric array. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;89:688–700. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.10.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tragante V, et al. Gene-centric meta-analysis in 87,736 individuals of European ancestry identifies multiple blood-pressure-related loci. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;94:349–360. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.12.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Simino J, et al. Gene-age interactions in blood pressure regulation: a large-scale investigation with the CHARGE, Global BPgen, and ICBP Consortia. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;95:24–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.05.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kato N, et al. Trans-ancestry genome-wide association study identifies 12 genetic loci influencing blood pressure and implicates a role for DNA methylation. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1282–1293. doi: 10.1038/ng.3405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Surendran P, et al. Trans-ancestry meta-analyses identify rare and common variants associated with blood pressure and hypertension. Nat Genet. 2016;48:1151–1161. doi: 10.1038/ng.3654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu C, et al. Meta-analysis identifies common and rare variants influencing blood pressure and overlapping with metabolic trait loci. Nat Genet. 2016;48:1162–1170. doi: 10.1038/ng.3660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ehret GB, et al. The genetics of blood pressure regulation and its target organs from association studies in 342,415 individuals. Nat Genet. 2016;48:1171–1184. doi: 10.1038/ng.3667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hoffmann TJ, et al. Genome-wide association analyses using electronic health records identify new loci influencing blood pressure variation. Nat Genet. 2017;49:54–64. doi: 10.1038/ng.3715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Warren HR, et al. Genome-wide association analysis identifies novel blood pressure loci and offers biological insights into cardiovascular risk. Nat Genet. 2017;49:403–415. doi: 10.1038/ng.3768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kraja AT, et al. New blood pressure-associated loci identified in meta-analyses of 475 000 individuals. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10:e001778. doi: 10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wain LV, et al. Novel blood pressure locus and gene discovery using genome-wide association study and expression data sets from blood and the kidney. Hypertension. 2017 doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.09438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Evangeou E, et al. Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1412–1425. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0205-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Giri A, et al. Trans-ethnic association study of blood pressure determinants in over 750,000 individuals. Nat Genet. 2019;51:51–62. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0303-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;88:76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.11.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bycroft C, et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature. 2018;562:203–209. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0579-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Loh PR, et al. Efficient Bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nat Genet. 2015;47:284–290. doi: 10.1038/ng.3190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Benner C, et al. FINEMAP: efficient variable selection using summary data from genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:1493–1501. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wu MC, et al. Rare-variant association testing for sequencing data with the sequence kernel association test. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;89:82–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McLaren W, et al. The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor. Genome Biol. 2016;17:122. doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-0974-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Marouli E, et al. Rare and low-frequency coding variants alter human adult height. Nature. 2017;542:186–190. doi: 10.1038/nature21039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu DJ, et al. Exome-wide association study of plasma lipids in 300,000 individuals. Nat Genet. 2017;49:1758–1766. doi: 10.1038/ng.3977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Finan C, et al. The druggable genome and support for target identification and validation in drug development. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9 doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aag1166. eaag1166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Foley CN, et al. A fast and efficient colocalization algorithm for identifying shared genetic risk factors across multiple traits. bioRxiv. 2019 doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20885-8. 592238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Solovieff N, Cotsapas C, Lee PH, Purcell SM, Smoller JW. Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14:483–495. doi: 10.1038/nrg3461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Xu X, et al. Molecular insights into genome-wide association studies of chronic kidney disease-defining traits. Nat Commun. 2018;9:4800. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07260-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rowland J, et al. Uncovering genetic mechanisms of kidney aging through transcriptomics, genomics, and epigenomics. Kidney Int. 2019;95:624–635. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2018.10.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Staley JR, et al. PhenoScanner: a database of human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:3207–3209. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Turcot V, et al. Protein-altering variants associated with body mass index implicate pathways that control energy intake and expenditure in obesity. Nat Genet. 2018;50:26–41. doi: 10.1038/s41588-017-0011-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Vishram JK, et al. Impact of age on the importance of systolic and diastolic blood pressures for stroke risk: the MOnica, Risk, Genetics, Archiving, and Monograph (MORGAM) Project. Hypertension. 2012;60:1117–1123. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.201400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Messaoudi S, et al. Endothelial Gata5 transcription factor regulates blood pressure. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8835. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kircher M, et al. A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nat Genet. 2014;46:310–315. doi: 10.1038/ng.2892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wang Z, et al. Phospholipase C beta3 deficiency leads to macrophage hypersensitivity to apoptotic induction and reduction of atherosclerosis in mice. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:195–204. doi: 10.1172/JCI33139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hoeppner LH, et al. Revealing the role of phospholipase Cbeta3 in the regulation of VEGF-induced vascular permeability. Blood. 2012;120:2167–2173. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-03-417824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Li M, et al. SOS2 and ACP1 loci identified through large-scale exome chip analysis regulate kidney development and function. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28:981–994. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016020131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tidyman WE, Rauen KA. Pathogenetics of the RASopathies. Hum Mol Genet. 2016;25:R123–R132. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddw191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kim JH, et al. Functional role of the polymorphic 647 T/C variant of ENT1 (SLC29A1) and its association with alcohol withdrawal seizures. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Best KA, Bone DB, Vilas G, Gros R, Hammond JR. Changes in aortic reactivity associated with the loss of equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (ENT1) in mice. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0207198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zaidi S, et al. De novo mutations in histone-modifying genes in congenital heart disease. Nature. 2013;498:220–223. doi: 10.1038/nature12141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jin SC, et al. Contribution of rare inherited and de novo variants in 2,871 congenital heart disease probands. Nat Genet. 2017;49:1593–1601. doi: 10.1038/ng.3970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nielsen JB, et al. Genome-wide study of atrial fibrillation identifies seven risk loci and highlights biological pathways and regulatory elements involved in cardiac development. Am J Hum Genet. 2018;102:103–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tobin MD, Sheehan NA, Scurrah KJ, Burton PR. Adjusting for treatment effects in studies of quantitative traits: antihypertensive therapy and systolic blood pressure. Stat Med. 2005;24:2911–2935. doi: 10.1002/sim.2165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Grove ML, et al. Best practices and joint calling of the HumanExome BeadChip: the CHARGE Consortium. PLoS One. 2013;8:e68095. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Liu DJ, et al. Meta-analysis of gene-level tests for rare variant association. Nat Genet. 2014;46:200–204. doi: 10.1038/ng.2852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Willer CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2190–2191. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fadista J, Manning AK, Florez JC, Groop L. The (in)famous GWAS P-value threshold revisited and updated for low-frequency variants. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:1202–1205. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Flannick J, et al. Exome sequencing of 20,791 cases of type 2 diabetes and 24,440 controls. Nature. 2019;570:71–76. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1231-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mahajan A, et al. Fine-mapping type 2 diabetes loci to single-variant resolution using high-density imputation and islet-specific epigenome maps. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1505–1513. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0241-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mahajan A, et al. Refining the accuracy of validated target identification through coding variant fine-mapping in type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet. 2018;50:559–571. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0084-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Yengo L, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for height and body mass index in ~700000 individuals of European ancestry Hum. Mol Genet. 2018;27:3641–3649. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddy271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Willer CJ, et al. Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1274–1283. doi: 10.1038/ng.2797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Dupuis J, et al. New genetic loci implicated in fasting glucose homeostasis and their impact on type 2 diabetes risk. Nat Genet. 2010;42:105–116. doi: 10.1038/ng.520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Scott RA, et al. An expanded genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in Europeans. Diabetes. 2017;66:2888–2902. doi: 10.2337/db16-1253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nikpay M, et al. A comprehensive 1,000 Genomes-based genome-wide association meta-analysis of coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1121–1130. doi: 10.1038/ng.3396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Giambartolomei C, et al. Bayesian test for colocalisation between pairs of genetic association studies using summary statistics. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004383. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Malik R, et al. Multiancestry genome-wide association study of 520,000 subjects identifies 32 loci associated with stroke and stroke subtypes. Nat Genet. 2018;50:524–537. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0058-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.van der Harst P, Verweij N. Identification of 64 novel genetic loci provides an expanded view on the genetic architecture of coronary artery disease. Circ Res. 2018;122:433–443. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.312086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Burgess S, et al. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:543–552. doi: 10.1007/s10654-015-0011-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:512–525. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Verbanck M, Chen CY, Neale B, Do R. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat Genet. 2018;50:693–698. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Pierce BL, Ahsan H, Vanderweele TJ. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:740–752. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45:1866–1886. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Sanderson E, Davey Smith G, Windmeijer F, Bowden J. An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48:713–727. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Di Angelantonio E, et al. Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors. Lancet. 2017;390:2360–2371. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31928-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Astle WJ, et al. The allelic landscape of human blood cell trait variation and links to common complex disease. Cell. 2016;167:1415–1429 e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Day N, et al. EPIC-Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohort European Prospective Investigation of Cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999;80(1):95–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1113–1120. doi: 10.1038/ng.2764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Bray NL, Pimentel H, Melsted P, Pachter L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:525–527. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Iotchkova V, et al. Discovery and refinement of genetic loci associated with cardiometabolic risk using dense imputation maps. Nat Genet. 2016;48:1303–1312. doi: 10.1038/ng.3668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Iotchkova V, et al. GARFIELD classifies disease-relevant genomic features through integration of functional annotations with association signals. Nat Genet. 2019;51:343–353. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0322-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Zhu X, et al. Meta-analysis of correlated traits via summary statistics from GWASs with an application in hypertension. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;96:21–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.11.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Newton-Cheh C, et al. Association of common variants in NPPA and NPPB with circulating natriuretic peptides and blood pressure. Nat Genet. 2009;41:348–53. doi: 10.1038/ng.328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables

Data Availability Statement

Summary association results for all the traits are available for download from: https://app.box.com/s/1ev9iakptips70k8t4cm8j347if0ef2u and from the CHARGE dbGaP Summary site, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/) accession number phs000930.

RESOURCES