Article | Published:

Trans-ethnic association study of blood pressure determinants in over 750,000 individuals

Abstract

In this trans-ethnic multi-omic study, we reinterpret the genetic architecture of blood pressure to identify genes, tissues, phenomes and medication contexts of blood pressure homeostasis. We discovered 208 novel common blood pressure SNPs and 53 rare variants in genome-wide association studies of systolic, diastolic and pulse pressure in up to 776,078 participants from the Million Veteran Program (MVP) and collaborating studies, with analysis of the blood pressure clinical phenome in MVP. Our transcriptome-wide association study detected 4,043 blood pressure associations with genetically predicted gene expression of 840 genes in 45 tissues, and mouse renal single-cell RNA sequencing identified upregulated blood pressure genes in kidney tubule cells.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

Full summary statistics relating to the Million Veteran Program (MVP) are publicly available and may be accessed from dbGaP with the accession code phs001672.v1.p1. The UK Biobank data are available upon application to the UK Biobank (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk). Combined summary statistics for common and rare variant analysis (discovery and replication) for sentinel SNPs for each blood pressure trait are available in the supplementary tables. Statistically significant reports for S-PrediXcan results for all 45 tissues and PheWAS analyses for all blood pressure traits evaluated are also in the supplementary tables. Mouse single-cell sequencing data can be found at Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE107585).

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

  • 25 January 2019

    In the version of the article originally published, the accession code phs001672.v1.p1 in the ‘Data availability’ section was hyperlinked incorrectly. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. 1.

    Lawes, C. M. M., Vander Hoorn, S. & Rodgers, A. International Society of Hypertension. Global burden of blood-pressure-related disease, 2001. Lancet 371, 1513–1518 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Forouzanfar, M. H. et al. Global burden of hypertension and systolic blood pressure of at least 110 to 115 mm Hg, 1990-2015. JAMA 317, 165–182 (2017).

  3. 3.

    Lewington, S. et al. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 360, 1903–1913 (2002).

  4. 4.

    Whelton, P. K. et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71, e127–e248 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Muntner, P. et al. Potential U.S. population impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA high blood pressure guideline. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71, 109–118 (2018).

  6. 6.

    International Consortium for Blood Pressure Genome-Wide Association Studies et al. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature 478, 103–109 (2011).

  7. 7.

    Levy, D. et al. Genome-wide association study of blood pressure and hypertension. Nat. Genet. 41, 677–687 (2009).

  8. 8.

    Newton-Cheh, C. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies eight loci associated with blood pressure. Nat. Genet. 41, 666–676 (2009).

  9. 9.

    Franceschini, N. et al. Genome-wide association analysis of blood-pressure traits in African-ancestry individuals reveals common associated genes in African and non-African populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 93, 545–554 (2013).

  10. 10.

    Liang, J. et al. Single-trait and multi-trait genome-wide association analyses identify novel loci for blood pressure in African-ancestry populations. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006728 (2017).

  11. 11.

    Li, C. et al. Genome-wide association study meta-analysis of long-term average blood pressure in East Asians. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 10, e001527 (2017).

  12. 12.

    Warren, H. R. et al. Genome-wide association analysis identifies novel blood pressure loci and offers biological insights into cardiovascular risk. Nat. Genet. 49, 403–415 (2017).

  13. 13.

    Sofer, T. et al. Genome-wide association study of blood pressure traits by Hispanic/Latino background: the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Sci. Rep. 7, 10348 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Adeyemo, A. et al. A genome-wide association study of hypertension and blood pressure in African Americans. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000564 (2009).

  15. 15.

    Parmar, P. G. et al. International genome-wide association study consortium identifies novel loci associated with blood pressure in children and adolescents. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 9, 266–278 (2016).

  16. 16.

    Lu, X. et al. Genome-wide association study in Chinese identifies novel loci for blood pressure and hypertension. Hum. Mol. Genet. 24, 865–874 (2015).

  17. 17.

    He, J. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 8 novel loci associated with blood pressure responses to interventions in Han Chinese. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 6, 598–607 (2013).

  18. 18.

    Kato, N. et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies common variants associated with blood pressure variation in east Asians. Nat. Genet. 43, 531–538 (2011).

  19. 19.

    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. 47, 1282–1293 (2015).

  20. 20.

    Kelly, T. N. et al. Genome-wide association study meta-analysis reveals transethnic replication of mean arterial and pulse pressure loci. Hypertension 62, 853–859 (2013).

  21. 21.

    Wain, L. V. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies six new loci influencing pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure. Nat. Genet. 43, 1005–1011 (2011).

  22. 22.

    Kraja, A. T. et al. New blood pressure-associated loci identified in meta-analyses of 475,000 individuals. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 10, e001778 (2017).

  23. 23.

    Surendran, P. et al. Trans-ancestry meta-analyses identify rare and common variants associated with blood pressure and hypertension. Nat. Genet. 48, 1151–1161 (2016).

  24. 24.

    Liu, C. et al. Meta-analysis identifies common and rare variants influencing blood pressure and overlapping with metabolic trait loci. Nat. Genet. 48, 1162–1170 (2016).

  25. 25.

    Wain, L. V. et al. Novel blood pressure locus and gene discovery using genome-wide association study and expression data sets from blood and the kidney. Hypertension 70, e4–e19 (2017).

  26. 26.

    Ehret, G. B. et al. The genetics of blood pressure regulation and its target organs from association studies in 342,415 individuals. Nat. Genet. 48, 1171–1184 (2016).

  27. 27.

    Hoffmann, T. J. et al. Genome-wide association analyses using electronic health records identify new loci influencing blood pressure variation. Nat. Genet. 49, 54–64 (2017).

  28. 28.

    Lee, D. et al. A method to predict the impact of regulatory variants from DNA sequence. Nat. Genet. 47, 955–961 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Finucane, H. K. et al. Partitioning heritability by functional annotation using genome-wide association summary statistics. Nat. Genet. 47, 1228–1235 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Gusev, A. et al. Partitioning heritability of regulatory and cell-type-specific variants across 11 common diseases. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 95, 535–552 (2014).

  31. 31.

    Barbeira, A. N. et al. Exploring the phenotypic consequences of tissue specific gene expression variation inferred from GWAS summary statistics. Nat. Commun. 9, 1825 (2018).

  32. 32.

    Gamazon, E. R. et al. A gene-based association method for mapping traits using reference transcriptome data. Nat. Genet. 47, 1091–1098 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Gusev, A. et al. Integrative approaches for large-scale transcriptome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 48, 245–252 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Zhu, Z. et al. Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nat. Genet. 48, 481–487 (2016).

  35. 35.

    International Consortium for Blood Pressure Genome-Wide Association Studies et al. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature 478, 103–109 (2011).

  36. 36.

    GTEx Consortium. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science 348, 648–660 (2015).

  37. 37.

    Ko, Y.-A. et al. Genetic-variation-driven gene-expression changes highlight genes with important functions for kidney disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 100, 940–953 (2017).

  38. 38.

    Uhlén, M. et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 347, 1260419 (2015).

  39. 39.

    Pers, T. H. et al. Biological interpretation of genome-wide association studies using predicted gene functions. Nat. Commun. 6, 5890 (2015).

  40. 40.

    Gamazon, E. R. et al. Using an atlas of gene regulation across 44 human tissues to inform complex disease- and trait-associated variation. Nat. Genet. 50, 956–967 (2018).

  41. 41.

    Matsuki, K., Hathaway, C. K., Lawrence, M. G., Smithies, O. & Kakoki, M. The role of transforming growth factor β1 in the regulation of blood pressure. Curr. Hypertens. Rev. 10, 223–238 (2014).

  42. 42.

    Lavoie, P. et al. Neutralization of transforming growth factor-beta attenuates hypertension and prevents renal injury in uremic rats. J. Hypertens. 23, 1895–1903 (2005).

  43. 43.

    Dubois, C. M., Laprise, M. H., Blanchette, F., Gentry, L. E. & Leduc, R. Processing of transforming growth factor beta 1 precursor by human furin convertase. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 10618–10624 (1995).

  44. 44.

    Li, N. et al. Associations between genetic variations in the FURIN gene and hypertension. BMC Med. Genet. 11, 124 (2010).

  45. 45.

    Ruschitzka, F. et al. Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial. Eur. Heart J. 38, 3282–3292 (2017).

  46. 46.

    Rippe, C. et al. Hypertension reduces soluble guanylyl cyclase expression in the mouse aorta via the Notch signaling pathway. Sci. Rep. 7, 1334 (2017).

  47. 47.

    Bauersachs, J. et al. Vasodilator dysfunction in aged spontaneously hypertensive rats: changes in NO synthase III and soluble guanylyl cyclase expression, and in superoxide anion production. Cardiovasc. Res. 37, 772–779 (1998).

  48. 48.

    Ruetten, H., Zabel, U., Linz, W. & Schmidt, H. H. Downregulation of soluble guanylyl cyclase in young and aging spontaneously hypertensive rats. Circ. Res. 85, 534–541 (1999).

  49. 49.

    Protogerou, A. D. et al. Longitudinal changes in mean and pulse pressure, and all-cause mortality: data from 71,629 untreated normotensive individuals. Am. J. Hypertens. 30, 1093–1099 (2017).

  50. 50.

    Yasuno, S. et al. Is pulse pressure a predictor of new-onset diabetes in high-risk hypertensive patients? Diabetes Care 33, 1122–1127 (2010).

  51. 51.

    Said, M. A., Eppinga, R. N., Lipsic, E., Verweij, N. & van der Harst, P. Relationship of arterial stiffness index and pulse pressure with cardiovascular disease and mortality. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7, e007621 (2018).

  52. 52.

    Prenner, S. B. & Chirinos, J. A. Arterial stiffness in diabetes mellitus. Atherosclerosis 238, 370–379 (2015).

  53. 53.

    Xu, M. et al. Diabetes and risk of arterial stiffness: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Diabetes 65, 1731–1740 (2016).

  54. 54.

    Bhosale, S. D. et al. Serum proteomic profiling to identify biomarkers of premature carotid atherosclerosis. Sci. Rep. 8, 9209 (2018).

  55. 55.

    Lee, J. H. et al. Association between CDH13 variants and cardiometabolic and vascular phenotypes in a Korean population. Yonsei. Med. J. 54, 1305–1312 (2013).

  56. 56.

    Reschen, M. E., Lin, D., Chalisey, A., Soilleux, E. J. & O’Callaghan, C. A. Genetic and environmental risk factors for atherosclerosis regulate transcription of phosphatase and actin regulating gene PHACTR1. Atherosclerosis 250, 95–105 (2016).

  57. 57.

    Jarray, R. et al. Disruption of phactr-1 pathway triggers pro-inflammatory and pro-atherogenic factors: new insights in atherosclerosis development. Biochimie 118, 151–161 (2015).

  58. 58.

    Williams, C., Kingwell, B. A., Burke, K., McPherson, J. & Dart, A. M. Folic acid supplementation for 3 wk reduces pulse pressure and large artery stiffness independent of MTHFR genotype. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 82, 26–31 (2005).

  59. 59.

    Girelli, D. et al. The interaction between MTHFR 677 C→T genotype and folate status is a determinant of coronary atherosclerosis risk. J. Nutr. 133, 1281–1285 (2003).

  60. 60.

    Rapsomaniki, E. et al. Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people. Lancet 383, 1899–1911 (2014).

  61. 61.

    Bani, D. Relaxin: a pleiotropic hormone. Gen. Pharmacol. 28, 13–22 (1997).

  62. 62.

    Grossman, J. & Frishman, W. H. Relaxin: a new approach for the treatment of acute congestive heart failure. Cardiol. Rev. 18, 305–312 (2010).

  63. 63.

    Teichman, S. L. et al. Relaxin, a pleiotropic vasodilator for the treatment of heart failure. Heart. Fail. Rev. 14, 321–329 (2009).

  64. 64.

    Teerlink, J. R. et al. Relaxin for the treatment of patients with acute heart failure (Pre-RELAX-AHF): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding phase IIb study. Lancet 373, 1429–1439 (2009).

  65. 65.

    Bathgate, Ra. D. et al. Relaxin family peptides and their receptors. Physiol. Rev. 93, 405–480 (2013).

  66. 66.

    McNally, T. et al. Cloning and expression of the adenosine kinase gene from rat and human tissues. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 231, 645–650 (1997).

  67. 67.

    Shryock, J. C. & Belardinelli, L. Adenosine and adenosine receptors in the cardiovascular system: biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology. Am. J. Cardiol. 79, 2–10 (1997).

  68. 68.

    Böhm, M. Cardiac effects of adenosine. Mechanism of action, pathophysiologic and clinical significance. Klin. Wochenschr. 65, 487–499 (1987).

  69. 69.

    Echavarría-Pinto, M. et al. Low coronary microcirculatory resistance associated with profound hypotension during intravenous adenosine infusion: implications for the functional assessment of coronary stenoses. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 35–42 (2014).

  70. 70.

    Camm, A. J. & Garratt, C. J. Adenosine and supraventricular tachycardia. N. Engl. J. Med. 325, 1621–1629 (1991).

  71. 71.

    Shen, F. M. & Su, D. F. The effect of adenosine on blood pressure variability in sinoaortic denervated rats is mediated by adenosine A2a-receptor. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 36, 681–686 (2000).

  72. 72.

    Maass, P. G. et al. PDE3A mutations cause autosomal dominant hypertension with brachydactyly. Nat. Genet. 47, 647–653 (2015).

  73. 73.

    Houslay, M. Hypertension linked to PDE3A activation. Nat. Genet. 47, 562–563 (2015).

  74. 74.

    Schuster, H. et al. A cross-over medication trial for patients with autosomal-dominant hypertension with brachydactyly. Kidney Int. 53, 167–172 (1998).

  75. 75.

    Naraghi, R. et al. Neurovascular compression at the ventrolateral medulla in autosomal dominant hypertension and brachydactyly. Stroke 28, 1749–1754 (1997).

  76. 76.

    Schunkert, H. et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat. Genet. 43, 333–338 (2011).

  77. 77.

    Getman, D. K., Eubanks, J. H., Camp, S., Evans, G. A. & Taylor, P. The human gene encoding acetylcholinesterase is located on the long arm of chromosome 7. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 51, 170–177 (1992).

  78. 78.

    Singer, W. et al. Acetylcholinesterase inhibition: a novel approach in the treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 74, 1294–1298 (2003).

  79. 79.

    Del Greco, M. F. et al. Genome-wide association analysis and fine mapping of NT-proBNP level provide novel insight into the role of the MTHFR-CLCN6-NPPA-NPPB gene cluster. Hum. Mol. Genet. 20, 1660–1671 (2011).

  80. 80.

    Flister, M. J. et al. Identifying multiple causative genes at a single GWAS locus. Genome Res. 23, 1996–2002 (2013).

  81. 81.

    Potter, L. R., Yoder, A. R., Flora, D. R., Antos, L. K. & Dickey, D. M. Natriuretic peptides: their structures, receptors, physiologic functions and therapeutic applications. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 341–366 (2009).

  82. 82.

    Brandt, S. & Jentsch, T. J. ClC-6 and ClC-7 are two novel broadly expressed members of the CLC chloride channel family. FEBS Lett. 377, 15–20 (1995).

  83. 83.

    Park, J. et al. Comprehensive single cell RNAseq analysis of the kidney reveals novel cell types and unexpected cell plasticity. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/10/13/203125 (2017).

  84. 84.

    Manichaikul, A. et al. Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 26, 2867–2873 (2010).

  85. 85.

    The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

  86. 86.

    Loh, P.-R. et al. Reference-based phasing using the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel. Nat. Genet. 48, 1443–1448 (2016).

  87. 87.

    Das, S. et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat. Genet. 48, 1284–1287 (2016).

  88. 88.

    Abraham, G. & Inouye, M. Fast principal component analysis of large-scale genome-wide data. PLoS One 9, e93766 (2014).

  89. 89.

    Chawla, P. S. & Kochar, M. S. Effect of pain and nonsteroidal analgesics on blood pressure. WMJ 98, 22–25 (1999). 29.

  90. 90.

    Maixner, W., Gracely, R. H., Zuniga, J. R., Humphrey, C. B. & Bloodworth, G. R. Cardiovascular and sensory responses to forearm ischemia and dynamic hand exercise. Am. J. Physiol. 259, R1156–R1163 (1990).

  91. 91.

    Taylor, J. Y. et al. A genome-wide study of blood pressure in African Americans accounting for gene-smoking interaction. Sci. Rep. 6, 18812 (2016).

  92. 92.

    Marchini, J., Howie, B., Myers, S., McVean, G. & Donnelly, P. A new multipoint method for genome-wide association studies by imputation of genotypes. Nat. Genet. 39, 906–913 (2007).

  93. 93.

    Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. LD score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 47, 291–295 (2015).

  94. 94.

    Willer, C. J., Li, Y. & Abecasis, G. R. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 26, 2190–2191 (2010).

  95. 95.

    Yang, J., Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E. & Visscher, P. M. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 88, 76–82 (2011).

  96. 96.

    Denny, J. C. et al. PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide scan to discover gene–disease associations. Bioinformatics 26, 1205–1210 (2010).

  97. 97.

    Carroll, R. J., Bastarache, L. & Denny, J. C. R. PheWAS: data analysis and plotting tools for phenome-wide association studies in the Renvironment. Bioinformatics 30, 2375–2376 (2014).

  98. 98.

    Kuhn, M., Letunic, I., Jensen, L. J. & Bork, P. The SIDER database of drugs and side effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D1075–D1079 (2016).

  99. 99.

    Smith, J. C. et al. Lessons learned from developing a drug evidence base to support pharmacovigilance. Appl. Clin. Inform. 4, 596–617 (2013).

  100. 100.

    Cotto, K. C. et al. DGIdb 3.0: a redesign and expansion of the drug-gene interaction database. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1068–D1073 (2017).

  101. 101.

    Li, Y. H. et al. Therapeutic target database update 2018: enriched resource for facilitating bench-to-clinic research of targeted therapeutics. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1121–D1127 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is a product of the effort, initiative and funds made available to several individuals by multiple funding organizations. Detailed acknowledgements and funding details are provided in the Supplementary Note. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the US National Institutes of Health; the US Department of Health and Human Services; the UK National Health Service; the European Commission (UK); the UK National Institute for Health Research; or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. This publication does not represent the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.

Author information

A.G., J.N.H., J.M.K., E.S.T., C.P.K., Y.V.S., O.D.W., C.R.-C., C.L.R., C.P. Chung, K.A.B., H.R.W., C.P. Cabrera, E.E., J.M.M.H., M.J.C., P.E., M.E.M., E.E.S., J.M.G., J.C., P.W.F.W., P.S.T., D.R.V.E., C.J.O., A.M.H. and T.L.E. contributed to discovery analysis. H.R.W., E.E., C.P. Cabrera, L.V.W., M.J.C., P.E., B.M.P., M.S., P. Amouyel, S.D, M.L., M.B., L.J.S., E.Z., P.B.M., M.F., P. Sever, N.R.P., J.M.M.H., P. Surendran, J.L., J.-H.Z., S.M.W., R.A.S., C. Langenberg, N.J.W., D.C., S.T., C.N.A.P., N. Shah, C.O., J.A., D.I.C., P.M.R., O.M., P. Almgren, R.L.-G., D.M.-K., P.v.d.H., N.V., F.C., D.S., C.H. T.S.B., M.M. and T.D.S. (ICBP); P.B.M., E.E., E.Z., P. Surendran, D.I.C., I.N., C. Lindgren, M.-R.J., B.J.H., N.J.T., K.-H.H., N. Sepúlveda., T.G.R., G.D., E.F., J.P.C., A.K., S.K., N.L., J.M.M.H., C. Liu and C.N.-C. (BP-ICE); J.N.H., D.R.V.E. and T.L.E. (BioVU) contributed to the replication study. A.G., J.N.H., J.M.K., E.S.T., O.D.W., S.M.D., Y.W., Y.X., S.L.D., D.K., J.C.D., W.-Q.W., J.C.S., D.R.V.E., A.M.H. and T.L.E. performed central analysis. J.P., C.Q., R.S. and K.S. worked on human kidney and mouse model systems. A.G., J.N.H., J.M.K., C.P.K., Y.V.S., S.M.D., C.R.-C., B.S.M., E.A.A, M.E.M., P.W.F.W., P.S.T., D.R.V.E., C.J.O., A.M.H. and T.L.E. wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

P.S. received support from Pfizer Inc. N.P. has received financial support from several pharmaceutical companies which manufacture blood pressure-lowering agents, for consultancy fees (Servier), research projects and staff (Servier, Pfizer) and for arranging and speaking at educational meetings (AstraZeneca, Lri Therapharma, Napi, Servier and Pfizer). He holds no stocks and shares in any such companies. M.J.C. is Chief Scientist for Genomics England, a UK Government company. B.M.P. serves on the Data Safety Monitoring Board of a clinical trial funded by Zoll LifeCor and on the Steering Committee of the Yale Open Data Access Project funded by Johnson & Johnson. D.M.-K. works as a part-time clinical research consultant for Metabolon, Inc. R.A.S. is an employee and shareholder in GlaxoSmithKline plc. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (US); the National Institutes of Health (US); National Health Service (UK); National Institute for Health Research (UK); The Department of Health and Social Care (UK); the EC; or the US Department of Health and Human Services. This publication does not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Correspondence to Adriana M. Hung or Todd L. Edwards.

Integrated supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Figure 1 Comparison of effect sizes for known and novel sentinel SNPs identified with SBP, DBP, and pulse pressure across whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

    Sentinel SNPs from final meta-analysis for each blood pressure trait (left to right) were compared for consistency between UKB whites and MVP whites (row 1), MVP blacks and MVP whites (row 2), MVP Hispanics and MVP whites (row 3), and MVP Hispanics and MVP blacks (row 4). Blue dots denote sentinel SNPs from known loci, and red dots denote sentinel SNPs from novel loci.

  2. Supplementary Figure 2 Juxtaposed mirror plot for S-PrediXcan (–log10 P) and GWAS (log10 P) for SBP.

    –log10 P values for associations between genetically predicted gene expression (GPGE) analyses with SBP in 45 tissues are juxtaposed with log10 P values from GWAS analyses for SBP (maximum effective n = 760,226 biologically independent samples). All GWAS plots represent discovery + replication samples included. GPGE analysis with S-PrediXcan was also performed with the full discovery + replication summary statistics. Two-sided Wald test was performed to obtain z-scores and resulting P values. The upper red line denotes the Bonferroni significance threshold for S-PrediXcan (P < 2.5 × 10–7). The lower red line denotes the genome-wide significance threshold (P < 5 × 10–8). SBP, systolic blood pressure.

  3. Supplementary Figure 3 Juxtaposed mirror plots for S-PrediXcan (–log10 P) and GWAS (log10 P) for DBP.

    –log10 P values for associations between genetically predicted gene expression (GPGE) analyses with DBP in 45 tissues are juxtaposed with log10 P values from GWAS analyses for DBP (maximum effective n = 767,920 biologically independent samples). All GWAS plots represent discovery + replication samples included. GPGE analysis with S-PrediXcan was also performed with the full discovery + replication summary statistics. Two-sided Wald test was performed to obtain z-scores and resulting P values. The upper red line denotes the Bonferroni significance threshold for S-PrediXcan (P < 2.5 × 10–7). The lower red line denotes the genome-wide significance threshold (P < 5 × 10–8). DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

  4. Supplementary Figure 4 Juxtaposed mirror plots for S-PrediXcan (–log10 P) and GWAS (log10 P) for pulse pressure.

    –log10 P values for associations between genetically predicted gene expression (GPGE) analyses with pulse pressure in 45 tissues are juxtaposed with log10 P values from GWAS analyses for pulse pressure (maximum effective n = 759,768 biologically independent samples). All GWAS plots represent discovery + replication samples included. GPGE analysis with S-PrediXcan was also performed with the full discovery + replication summary statistics. Two-sided Wald test was performed to obtain z-scores and resulting P values. The upper red line denotes the Bonferroni significance threshold for S-PrediXcan (P < 2.5 × 10–7). The lower red line denotes the genome-wide significance threshold (P < 5 × 10–8).

  5. Supplementary Figure 5 Comparison of effect sizes for significant PheWAS results identified with SBP, DBP, and pulse pressure across whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

    Genetic risk scores (GRS) weighted for SBP, DBP and pulse pressure were regressed onto the clinical phenome in whites (maximum n = 188,008 biologically independent samples), blacks (maximum n = 52,530 biologically independent samples) and Hispanics (maximum n = 16,735 biologically independent samples) separately. Effect estimates for phenotypes that were significant in whites, blacks or Hispanics were compared across three ethnicities. Comparison of effect estimates are presented in the following order: blacks and whites (row 1), Hispanics and whites (row 2) and Hispanics and blacks (row 3) for SBP, DBP and pulse pressure (left to right). R2 denotes correlation between effect estimates calculated from a linear regression model. The blue line represents the regression line, and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval.

  6. Supplementary Figure 6 Venn diagram of associations from PheWAS for blood pressure trait-specific GRS.

    The diagram shows overlap of associations between SBP, DBP and pulse pressure w-GRS. PheWAS analysis was conducted in self-reported/administratively assigned white MVP participants only. W-GRS were constructed using statistically significant SNPs using weights from the UK Biobank data set.

  7. Supplementary Figure 7 Subcellular layout of the top network from IPA analysis of significant SBP genes in aorta.

    Genes significant (P < 2.5 × 10–7) in S-PrediXcan analysis of SBP GWAS loci in aorta were provided as input for IPA. Biological networks ranked by the number of overlapping loci were generated, and the top network is presented here. Twenty of 45 molecules are represented by genes significant in S-PrediXcan analyses, as indicated by node coloring. Arrows indicate the direction of the relationship, while solid lines indicate direct interaction (for example, phosphorylation) and broken lines indicate indirect relationships (for example, activation). Interactions without direction (for example, protein–protein) do not have an arrow. Nodes outlined in purple indicate overlay of cardiovascular disease (enrichment P = 7.16 × 10–6) and cardiovascular system and development (enrichment P = 7.73 × 10–5) pathways. Right-tailed Fisher’s exact test was performed to obtain enrichment P values without correction for multiple testing.

  8. Supplementary Figure 8 Subcellular layout of the top network from IPA analysis of significant DBP genes in aorta.

    Genes significant (P < 2.5 × 10–7) in S-PrediXcan analysis of DBP GWAS loci in aorta were provided as input for IPA. Biological networks ranked by the number of overlapping loci were generated, and the top network is presented here. Eleven of 27 molecules are represented by genes significant in S-PrediXcan analyses, as indicated by node coloring. Arrows indicate the direction of the relationship, while solid lines indicate direct interaction (for example, phosphorylation) and broken lines indicate indirect relationships (for example, activation). Interactions without direction (for example, protein–protein) do not have an arrow. Nodes outlined in purple indicate overlay of hematopoiesis (enrichment P = 6.57 × 10–7) and hematological system and development (enrichment P = 6.57 × 10–7) pathways. Right-tailed Fisher’s exact test was performed to obtain enrichment P values without correction for multiple testing.

  9. Supplementary Figure 9 Subcellular layout of the top network from IPA analysis of significant pulse pressure genes in aorta.

    Genes significant (P < 2.5 × 10–7) in S-PrediXcan analysis of pulse pressure GWAS loci in aorta were provided as input for IPA. Biological networks ranked by the number of overlapping loci were generated, and the top network is presented here. Eighteen of 36 molecules are represented by genes significant in S-PrediXcan analyses, as indicated by node coloring. Arrows indicate the direction of the relationship, while solid lines indicate direct interaction (for example, phosphorylation) and broken lines indicate indirect relationships (for example, activation). Interactions without direction (for example, protein–protein) do not have an arrow. Nodes outlined in purple indicate overlay of cardiovascular disease (enrichment P = 9.53 × 10–4) and cardiovascular system and development (enrichment P = 9.53 × 10–4) pathways. Right-tailed Fisher’s exact test was performed to obtain enrichment P values without correction for multiple testing.

  10. Supplementary Figure 10 Quantile–quantile (QQ) plots for discovery meta-analysis GWAS of BP traits.

    Shown are QQ plots for SBP (a; maximum n = 459,777 biologically independent samples), DBP (b; maximum n = 459,377 biologically independent samples) and pulse pressure (c; maximum n = 459,374 biologically independent samples). The genomic inflation statistic lambda is presented for discovery meta-analysis for each blood pressure trait. The red line represents the expected distribution. The blue dots represent the 95% confidence interval about the expected distribution.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–10 and Supplementary Note

  2. Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Tables

    Supplementary Tables 1–18

Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Publication history

  • Received

  • Accepted

  • Published

  • Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0303-9

Further reading

Fig. 1: Study design schematic.
Fig. 2: Manhattan plots summarizing discovery and replication meta-analysis.
Fig. 3: Mapping blood pressure–associated genes to mouse kidney cell type clusters.
Supplementary Figure 1: Comparison of effect sizes for known and novel sentinel SNPs identified with SBP, DBP, and pulse pressure across whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Supplementary Figure 2: Juxtaposed mirror plot for S-PrediXcan (–log10 P) and GWAS (log10 P) for SBP.
Supplementary Figure 3: Juxtaposed mirror plots for S-PrediXcan (–log10 P) and GWAS (log10 P) for DBP.
Supplementary Figure 4: Juxtaposed mirror plots for S-PrediXcan (–log10 P) and GWAS (log10 P) for pulse pressure.
Supplementary Figure 5: Comparison of effect sizes for significant PheWAS results identified with SBP, DBP, and pulse pressure across whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Supplementary Figure 6: Venn diagram of associations from PheWAS for blood pressure trait-specific GRS.
Supplementary Figure 7: Subcellular layout of the top network from IPA analysis of significant SBP genes in aorta.
Supplementary Figure 8: Subcellular layout of the top network from IPA analysis of significant DBP genes in aorta.
Supplementary Figure 9: Subcellular layout of the top network from IPA analysis of significant pulse pressure genes in aorta.
Supplementary Figure 10: Quantile–quantile (QQ) plots for discovery meta-analysis GWAS of BP traits.