G

Gad Abraham

Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute

ORCID: 0000-0003-4853-0118

Publishes on Genetic Associations and Epidemiology, Celiac Disease Research and Management, Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction. 87 papers and 5.4k citations.

87Publications
5.4kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Genomic Risk Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease in 480,000 Adults
Michael Inouye, Gad Abraham, Christopher P. Nelson et al.|Journal of the American College of Cardiology|2018
Cited by 824Open Access

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial heritability and a polygenic architecture. However, the potential of genomic risk scores to help predict CAD outcomes has not been evaluated comprehensively, because available studies have involved limited genomic scope and limited sample sizes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to construct a genomic risk score for CAD and to estimate its potential as a screening tool for primary prevention. METHODS: Using a meta-analytic approach to combine large-scale, genome-wide, and targeted genetic association data, we developed a new genomic risk score for CAD (metaGRS) consisting of 1.7 million genetic variants. We externally tested metaGRS, both by itself and in combination with available data on conventional risk factors, in 22,242 CAD cases and 460,387 noncases from the UK Biobank. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for CAD was 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68 to 1.73) per SD increase in metaGRS, an association larger than any other externally tested genetic risk score previously published. The metaGRS stratified individuals into significantly different life course trajectories of CAD risk, with those in the top 20% of metaGRS distribution having an HR of 4.17 (95% CI: 3.97 to 4.38) compared with those in the bottom 20%. The corresponding HR was 2.83 (95% CI: 2.61 to 3.07) among individuals on lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications. The metaGRS had a higher C-index (C = 0.623; 95% CI: 0.615 to 0.631) for incident CAD than any of 6 conventional factors (smoking, diabetes, hypertension, body mass index, self-reported high cholesterol, and family history). For men in the top 20% of metaGRS with >2 conventional factors, 10% cumulative risk of CAD was reached by 48 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: The genomic score developed and evaluated here substantially advances the concept of using genomic information to stratify individuals with different trajectories of CAD risk and highlights the potential for genomic screening in early life to complement conventional risk prediction.

Towards clinical utility of polygenic risk scores
Samuel A. Lambert, Gad Abraham, Michael Inouye|Human Molecular Genetics|2019
Cited by 645Open Access

Prediction of disease risk is an essential part of preventative medicine, often guiding clinical management. Risk prediction typically includes risk factors such as age, sex, family history of disease and lifestyle (e.g. smoking status); however, in recent years, there has been increasing interest to include genomic information into risk models. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) aggregate the effects of many genetic variants across the human genome into a single score and have recently been shown to have predictive value for multiple common diseases. In this review, we summarize the potential use cases for seven common diseases (breast cancer, prostate cancer, coronary artery disease, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease) where PRS has or could have clinical utility. PRS analysis for these diseases frequently revolved around (i) risk prediction performance of a PRS alone and in combination with other non-genetic risk factors, (ii) estimation of lifetime risk trajectories, (iii) the independent information of PRS and family history of disease or monogenic mutations and (iv) estimation of the value of adding a PRS to specific clinical risk prediction scenarios. We summarize open questions regarding PRS usability, ancestry bias and transferability, emphasizing the need for the next wave of studies to focus on the implementation and health-economic value of PRS testing. In conclusion, it is becoming clear that PRS have value in disease risk prediction and there are multiple areas where this may have clinical utility.

FlashPCA2: principal component analysis of Biobank-scale genotype datasets
Gad Abraham, Yixuan Qiu, Michael Inouye|Bioinformatics|2017
Cited by 450Open Access

Abstract Motivation Principal component analysis (PCA) is a crucial step in quality control of genomic data and a common approach for understanding population genetic structure. With the advent of large genotyping studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals, standard approaches are no longer feasible. However, when the full decomposition is not required, substantial computational savings can be made. Results We present FlashPCA2, a tool that can perform partial PCA on 1 million individuals faster than competing approaches, while requiring substantially less memory. Availability and implementation https://github.com/gabraham/flashpca. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Genomic prediction of coronary heart disease
Gad Abraham, Aki S. Havulinna, Oneil G. Bhalala et al.|European Heart Journal|2016
Cited by 348Open Access

AIMS: Genetics plays an important role in coronary heart disease (CHD) but the clinical utility of genomic risk scores (GRSs) relative to clinical risk scores, such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), is unclear. Our aim was to construct and externally validate a CHD GRS, in terms of lifetime CHD risk and relative to traditional clinical risk scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: We generated a GRS of 49 310 SNPs based on a CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium meta-analysis of CHD, then independently tested it using five prospective population cohorts (three FINRISK cohorts, combined n = 12 676, 757 incident CHD events; two Framingham Heart Study cohorts (FHS), combined n = 3406, 587 incident CHD events). The GRS was associated with incident CHD (FINRISK HR = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-1.86 per S.D. of GRS; Framingham HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.18-1.38), and was largely unchanged by adjustment for known risk factors, including family history. Integration of the GRS with the FRS or ACC/AHA13 scores improved the 10 years risk prediction (meta-analysis C-index: +1.5-1.6%, P < 0.001), particularly for individuals ≥60 years old (meta-analysis C-index: +4.6-5.1%, P < 0.001). Importantly, the GRS captured substantially different trajectories of absolute risk, with men in the top 20% of attaining 10% cumulative CHD risk 12-18 y earlier than those in the bottom 20%. High genomic risk was partially compensated for by low systolic blood pressure, low cholesterol level, and non-smoking. CONCLUSIONS: A GRS based on a large number of SNPs improves CHD risk prediction and encodes different trajectories of lifetime risk not captured by traditional clinical risk scores.