Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 14 November 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

High blood pressure is a highly heritable and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We report the largest genetic association study of blood pressure traits (systolic, diastolic and pulse pressure) to date in over 1 million people of European ancestry. We identify 535 novel blood pressure loci that not only offer new biological insights into blood pressure regulation but also highlight shared genetic architecture between blood pressure and lifestyle exposures. Our findings identify new biological pathways for blood pressure regulation with potential for improved cardiovascular disease prevention in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Study design schematic for discovery and validation of loci.
Fig. 2: Manhattan plot showing the minimum P-value for the association across all blood pressure traits in the discovery stage excluding known and previously reported variants.
Fig. 3: Venn diagrams of novel locus results.
Fig. 4: Association of blood pressure loci with lifestyle traits.
Fig. 5: Association of blood pressure loci with other traits and diseases.
Fig. 6: Association of blood pressure loci with other traits and diseases.
Fig. 7: Relationship of deciles of the genetic risk score (GRS) based on all 901 loci with blood pressure, risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in UKB.
Fig. 8: Known and novel blood pressure associations in the TGFβ signaling pathway.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The genetic and phenotypic UKB data are available upon application to the UK Biobank (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk). ICBP summary data can be accessed through request to the ICBP steering committee. Contact the corresponding authors to apply for access to the data. The UKB + ICBP summary GWAS discovery data can be accessed by request to the corresponding authors and will be available via LDHub (http://ldsc.broadinstitute.org/ldhub/). All replication data generated during this study are included in the published article. For example, association results of look-up variants from our replication analyses and the subsequent combined meta-analyses are contained within the Supplementary Tables.

Change history

  • 14 November 2018

    In the version of this article originally published, the name of author Martin H. de Borst was coded incorrectly in the XML. The error has now been corrected in the HTML version of the paper.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Muñoz, M. et al. Evaluating the contribution of genetics and familial shared environment to common disease using the UK Biobank. Nat. Genet. 48, 980–983 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Poulter, N. R., Prabhakaran, D. & Caulfield, M. Hypertension. Lancet 386, 801–812 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Feinleib, M. et al. The NHLBI twin study of cardiovascular disease risk factors: methodology and summary of results. Am. J. Epidemiol. 106, 284–285 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cabrera, C. P. et al. Exploring hypertension genome-wide association studies findings and impact on pathophysiology, pathways, and pharmacogenetics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 7, 73–90 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ehret, G. B. et al. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature 478, 103–109 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sudlow, C. et al. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12, e1001779 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaziano, J. M. et al. Million Veteran Program: a mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 70, 214–223 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leitsalu, L. et al. Cohort profile: Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44, 1137–1147 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McCarthy, S. et al. A reference panel of 64,976 haplotypes for genotype imputation. Nat. Genet. 48, 1279–1283 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Loh, P. R. et al. Efficient Bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nat. Genet. 47, 284–290 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ioannidis, J. P., Patsopoulos, N. A. & Evangelou, E. Heterogeneity in meta-analyses of genome-wide association investigations. PLoS One 2, e841 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Evangelou, E. & Ioannidis, J. P. Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 379–389 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pulit, S. L., de With, S. A. & de Bakker, P. I. Resetting the bar: statistical significance in whole-genome sequencing-based association studies of global populations. Genet. Epidemiol. 41, 145–151 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rao, S. S. et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitt, A. D. et al. A compendium of chromatin contact maps reveals spatially active regions in the human genome. Cell Rep. 17, 2042–2059 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dunham, I. K., Iotchkova, V., Morganella, S. & Birney, E. FORGE: a tool to discover cell specific enrichments of GWAS associated SNPs in regulatory regions. F1000Res. 4, 18 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. MacArthur, J. et al. The new NHGRI-EBI Catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS Catalog). Nucleic Acids Res. 45 D1, D896–D901 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Staley, J. R. et al. PhenoScanner: a database of human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinformatics 32, 3207–3209 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Piñero, J. et al. DisGeNET: a discovery platform for the dynamical exploration of human diseases and their genes. Database (Oxford) 2015, bav028 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Piñero, J. et al. DisGeNET: a comprehensive platform integrating information on human disease-associated genes and variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 45(D1), D833–D839 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Elliott, P. et al. The Airwave Health Monitoring Study of police officers and staff in Great Britain: rationale, design and methods. Environ. Res. 134, 280–285 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ehret, G. B. & Caulfield, M. J. Genes for blood pressure: an opportunity to understand hypertension. Eur. Heart J. 34, 951–961 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Blood pressure-lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 384, 591–598 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388, 1659–1724 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nakao, E. et al. Elevated plasma transforming growth factor β1 levels predict the development of hypertension in normotensives: the 14-year follow-up study. Am. J. Hypertens. 30, 808–814 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Feng, W., Dell’Italia, L. J. & Sanders, P. W. Novel paradigms of salt and hypertension. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 28, 1362–1369 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lane, K. B. et al. Heterozygous germline mutations in BMPR2, encoding a TGF-beta receptor, cause familial primary pulmonary hypertension. Nat. Genet. 26, 81–84 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Voight, B. F. et al. Twelve type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci identified through large-scale association analysis. Nat. Genet. 42, 579–589 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Douma, S. et al. Prevalence of primary hyperaldosteronism in resistant hypertension: a retrospective observational study. Lancet 371, 1921–1926 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Rossi, G. P. et al. A prospective study of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in 1,125 hypertensive patients. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48, 2293–2300 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Calhoun, D. A., Nishizaka, M. K., Zaman, M. A., Thakkar, R. B. & Weissmann, P. Hyperaldosteronism among black and white subjects with resistant hypertension. Hypertension 40, 892–896 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Drelon, C., Berthon, A., Mathieu, M., Martinez, A. & Val, P. Adrenal cortex tissue homeostasis and zonation: a WNT perspective. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 408, 156–164 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. El Wakil, A. & Lalli, E. The Wnt/beta-catenin pathway in adrenocortical development and cancer. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 332, 32–37 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Teo, A. E. et al. Pregnancy, primary aldosteronism, and adrenal CTNNB1 mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1429–1436 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Tissier, F. et al. Mutations of beta-catenin in adrenocortical tumors: activation of the Wnt signaling pathway is a frequent event in both benign and malignant adrenocortical tumors. Cancer Res. 65, 7622–7627 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Oliveira-Paula, G. H. et al. Polymorphisms in VEGFA gene affect the antihypertensive responses to enalapril. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 71, 949–957 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Yang, R. et al. Hypertension and endothelial dysfunction in apolipoprotein E knockout mice. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 19, 2762–2768 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sofat, R. et al. Circulating apolipoprotein E concentration and cardiovascular disease risk: meta-analysis of results from three studies. PLoS Med. 13, e1002146 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Conrad, K. P. Unveiling the vasodilatory actions and mechanisms of relaxin. Hypertension 56, 2–9 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Sun, H. J. et al. Relaxin in paraventricular nucleus contributes to sympathetic overdrive and hypertension via PI3K-Akt pathway. Neuropharmacology 103, 247–256 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Miyamoto, Y. et al. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibition induces vasodilator effect of sevoflurane via reduction of Rho kinase activity. Life Sci. 177, 20–26 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Pawlak, J. B., Wetzel-Strong, S. E., Dunn, M. K. & Caron, K. M. Cardiovascular effects of exogenous adrenomedullin and CGRP in Ramp and Calcrl deficient mice. Peptides 88, 1–7 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ohtsu, H. et al. Signal-crosstalk between Rho/ROCK and c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase mediates migration of vascular smooth muscle cells stimulated by angiotensin II. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 25, 1831–1836 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Tzoulaki, I., Elliott, P., Kontis, V. & Ezzati, M. Worldwide exposures to cardiovascular risk factors and associated health effects: current knowledge and data gaps. Circulation 133, 2314–2333 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Munafò, M. R., Tilling, K., Taylor, A. E., Evans, D. M. & Davey Smith, G. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations. Int. J. Epidemiol. 47, 226–235 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pazoki, R. et al. Genetic predisposition to high blood pressure and lifestyle factors: associations with midlife blood pressure levels and cardiovascular events. Circulation 137, 653–661 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell 169, 1177–1186 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Wain, L. V. et al. Novel insights into the genetics of smoking behaviour, lung function, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (UK BiLEVE): a genetic association study in UK Biobank. Lancet Respir. Med. 3, 769–781 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bycroft, C.F. et al. Genome-wide genetic data on 500,000 UK Biobank participants. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/166298 (2017).

  59. Tobin, M. D., Sheehan, N. A., Scurrah, K. J. & Burton, P. R. Adjusting for treatment effects in studies of quantitative traits: antihypertensive therapy and systolic blood pressure. Stat. Med. 24, 2911–2935 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Marouli, E. et al. Rare and low-frequency coding variants alter human adult height. Nature 542, 186–190 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhou, J. & Troyanskaya, O. G. Predicting effects of noncoding variants with deep learning-based sequence model. Nat. Methods 12, 931–934 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang, J., Vasaikar, S., Shi, Z., Greer, M. & Zhang, B. WebGestalt 2017: a more comprehensive, powerful, flexible and interactive gene set enrichment analysis toolkit. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, W130–W137 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Canela-Xandri, O., Rawlik, K. & Tenesa, A. An atlas of genetic associations in UK Biobank. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/176834 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

H.R.W. was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as part of the portfolio of translational research of the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. D.M.-A. is supported by the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/L01632X.1). B.M. holds an MRC eMedLab Medical Bioinformatics Career Development Fellowship, funded from award MR/L016311/1. H.G. was funded by the NIHR Imperial College Health Care NHS Trust and Imperial College London Biomedical Research Centre. C.P.C. was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as part of the portfolio of translational research of the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. S. Thériault was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Université Laval (Quebec City, Canada). G.P. was supported by Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and CISCO Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. I. Karaman was supported by the EU PhenoMeNal project (Horizon 2020, 654241). C.P.K. is supported by grant U01DK102163 from the NIH-NIDDK and by resources from the Memphis VA Medical Center. S.D. was supported for this work by grants from the European Research Council (ERC), the EU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). T. Boutin, J. Marten, V.V., A.F.W. and C.H. were supported by a core MRC grant to the MRCHGU QTL in Health and Disease research programme. M. Boehnke is supported by NIH grant R01-DK062370. H.W. and A. Goel acknowledge support of the Tripartite Immunometabolism Consortium (TrIC), Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant NNF15CC0018486). N.V. was supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie GF grant (661395) and ICIN-NHI. C. Menni is funded by the MRC AimHy (MR/M016560/1) project grant. M.A.N.’s participation is supported by a consulting contract between Data Tecnica International and the National Institute on Aging, NIH. M. Brumat, M. Cocca, I.G., P.G., G.G., A. Morgan, A.R., D.V., C.M.B., C.F.S., M. Traglia and D.T. were supported by Italian Ministry of Health grant RF2010 to P.G. and RC2008 to P.G. D.I.B. is supported by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Science Professor Award (PAH/6635). J.C.C. is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Singapore Translational Research Investigator (STaR) Award (NMRC/STaR/0028/2017). C.P.C., P.B.M. and M.R.B. were funded by the National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) as part of the portfolio of translational research of the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Barts. T.F. is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. M.R. is the recipient of an award from China Scholarship Council (No. 2011632047). C.L. was supported by the Medical Research Council UK (G1000143, MC_UU_12015/1, MC_PC_13048 and MC_U106179471), Cancer Research UK (C864/A14136) and EU FP6 programme (LSHM_CT_2006_037197). G.B.E. is supported by the Swiss National Foundation SPUM project FN 33CM30-124087, Geneva University, and the Fondation pour Recherches Médicales, Genève. C.M.L.is supported by the Li Ka Shing Foundation; WT-SSI/John Fell funds; the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford; Widenlife; and NIH (CRR00070 CR00.01). R.J.F.L. is supported by the NIH (R01DK110113, U01HG007417, R01DK101855 and R01DK107786). D.O.M.-K. is supported by the Dutch Science Organization (ZonMW-VENI Grant 916.14.023). M.M. was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) BioResource Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. H.W. and M.F. acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust core award (090532/Z/09/Z) and the BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/13/1/30181). A. Goel and H.W. acknowledge the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no. HEALTH-F2-2013-601456 (CVGenes@Target) and A. Goel the Wellcome Trust Institutional strategic support fund. L.R. was supported by Forschungs- und Förder-Stiftung INOVA, Liechtenstein. M. Tomaszewski is supported by British Heart Foundation (PG/17/35/33001). P. Sever is recipient of an NIHR Senior Investigator Award and is supported by the Biomedical Research Centre Award to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. P.v.d.H. was supported by the ICIN-NHI and Marie Sklodowska-Curie GF (call: H2020-MSCA-IF-2014, Project ID: 661395). N.J.W. was supported by the Medical Research Council UK (G1000143, MC_UU_12015/1, MC_PC_13048 and MC_U106179471), Cancer Research UK (C864/A14136) and EU FP6 programme (LSHM_CT_2006_037197). E.Z. was supported by the Wellcome Trust (WT098051). J.N.H. was supported by the Vanderbilt Molecular and Genetic Epidemiology of Cancer (MAGEC) training program, funded by T32CA160056 (PI: X.-O. Shu) and by VA grant 1I01CX000982. A. Giri was supported by VA grant 1I01CX000982. T.L.E. and D.R.V.E. were supported by grant R21HL121429 from NHLBI, NIH. A.M.H. was supported by VA Award #I01BX003360. C.J.O. was supported by VA Boston Healthcare, Section of Cardiology and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. The MRC/BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194) and UK National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. J. Danesh is a British Heart Foundation Professor and NIHR Senior Investigator. L.V.W. holds a GlaxoSmithKline/British Lung Foundation Chair in Respiratory Research. P.E. acknowledges support from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London, the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards (HPRU-2012-10141), and the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Public Health England (PHE) Centre for Environment and Health (MR/L01341X/1). P.E. is a UK Dementia Research Institute (DRI) professor at Imperial College London, funded by the MRC, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. He is also associate director of Health Data Research–UK London, funded by a consortium led by the Medical Research Council. M.J.C. was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as part of the portfolio of translational research of the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. M.J.C. is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) senior investigator, and this work is funded by the MRC eMedLab award to M.J.C. and M.R.B. and by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Barts.

This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application numbers 236 and 10035. This research was supported by the British Heart Foundation (grant SP/13/2/30111). Large-scale comprehensive genotyping of UK Biobank for cardiometabolic traits and diseases: UK CardioMetabolic Consortium (UKCMC).

Computing: This work was enabled using the computing resources of (i) the UK Medical Bioinformatics aggregation, integration, visualisation and analysis of large, complex data (UK Med-Bio), which is supported by the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/L01632X/1), and (ii) the MRC eMedLab Medical Bioinformatics Infrastructure, supported by the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/L016311/1). 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; the National Institutes of Health; or the US Department of Health and Human Services. C.P.K. is an employee of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

Central analysis. E.E., H.R.W., D.M.-A., B.M., R.P., H.G., G.N., N.D., C.P.C., I. Karaman, F.L.N., M.E., K.W., E.T., L.V.W.

Writing of the manuscript. E.E., H.R.W., D.M.-A., B.M., R.P., H.G., I.T., M.R.B., L.V.W., P.E., M.J.C. (with group leads E.E., H.R.W., L.V.W., P.E., M.J.C.). All authors critically reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

ICBP-Discovery contributor. (3C-Dijon) S.D., M.S., P. Amouyel, G.C., C.T.; (AGES-Reykjavik) V. Gudnason, L.J.L., A.V.S., T.B.H.; (ARIC) D.E.A., E.B., A. Chakravarti, A.C.M., P.N.; (ASCOT) N.R.P., D.C.S., A.S., S. Thom, P.B.M., P. Sever, M.J.C., H.R.W.; (ASPS) E.H., Y.S., R. Schmidt, H. Schmidt; (B58C) D.P.S., (BHS) A. James, N. Shrine; (BioMe (formerly IPM)) E.P.B., Y. Lu, R.J.F.L.; (BRIGHT) J.C., M.F., M.J.B., P.B.M., M.J.C., H.R.W.; (CHS) J.C.B., K.R., K.D.T., B.M.P.; (Cilento study) M. Ciullo, T. Nutile, D.R., R. Sorice; (COLAUS) M. Bochud, Z.K., P.V.; (CROATIA_Korcula) J. Marten, A.F.W.; (CROATIA_SPLIT) I. Kolcic, O.P., T.Z.; (CROATIA_Vis) J.E.H., I.R., V.V.; (EPIC) K.-T.K., R.J.F.L., N.J.W.; (EPIC-CVD) W.-Y.L., P. Surendran, A.S.B., J. Danesh, J.M.M.H.; (EPIC-Norfolk, Fenland-OMICS, Fenland-GWAS) J.-H.Z.; (EPIC-Norfolk, Fenland-OMICS, Fenland-GWAS, InterAct-GWAS) J.L., C.L., R.A.S., N.J.W.; (ERF) N.A., B.A.O., C.M.v.D.; (Fenland-Exome, EPIC-Norfolk-Exome) S.M.W., FHS, S.-J.H., D.L.; (FINRISK (COROGENE_CTRL)) P.J., K.K., M.P., A.-P.S.; (FINRISK_PREDICT_CVD) A.S.H., A. Palotie, S.R., V.S.; (FUSION) A.U.J., M. Boehnke, F. Collins, J.T., (GAPP) S. Thériault, G.P., D.C., L.R.; (Generation Scotland (GS:SFHS)) T. Boutin, C.H., A. Campbell, S.P.; (GoDARTs) N. Shah, A.S.F.D., A.D.M., C.N.A.P.; (GRAPHIC) P.S.B., C.P.N., N.J.S., M.D.T.; (H2000_CTRL) A. Jula, P.K., S. Koskinen, T. Niiranen; (HABC) Y. Liu, M.A.N., T.B.H.; (HCS) J.R.A., E.G.H., C.O., R.J. Scott; (HTO) K.L.A., H.J.C., B.D.K., M. Tomaszewski, C. Mamasoula; (ICBP-SC) G.A., T.F., M.-R.J., A.D.J., M. Larson, C.N.-C.; (INGI-CARL) I.G., G.G., A. Morgan, A.R.; (INGI-FVG) M. Brumat, M. Cocca, P.G., D.V.; (INGI-VB) C.M.B., C.F.S., D.T., M. Traglia; (JUPITER) F.G., L.M.R., P.M.R., D.I.C.; (KORA S3) C.G., M. Laan, E.O., S.S.; (KORA S4) A. Peters, J.S.R.; (LBC1921) S.E.H., D.C.M.L., A. Pattie, J.M.S.; (LBC1936) G.D., I.J.D., A.J.G., L.M.L.; (Lifelines) N.V., M.H.d.B., M.A.S., P.v.d.H.; (LOLIPOP) J.C.C., J.S.K., B.L., W.Z.; (MDC) P. Almgren, O.M.; (MESA) X.G., W.P., J.I.R., J.Y.; (METSIM) A.U.J., M. Laakso; (MICROS) F.D.G.M., A.A.H., P.P.P.; (MIGEN) R.E., S. Kathiresan, J. Marrugat, D.S.; (ΝΕΟ) R.L.-G., R.d.M., R.N., D.O.M.-K.; (NESDA) Y.M., I.M.N., B.W.J.H.P., H. Snieder; (NSPHS) S.E., U.G., Å. Johansson; (NTR) D.I.B., E.J.d.G., J.-J.H., G.W.; (ORCADES) H.C., P.K.J., S.H.W., J.F.W.; (PIVUS) L. Lin, C.M.L., J.S., A. Mahajan; (Prevend) N.V., P.v.d.H.; (PROCARDIS) M.F., A. Goel, H.W.; (PROSPER) J. Deelen, J.W.J., D.J.S., S. Trompet; (RS) O.H.F., A. Hofman, A.G.U., G.C.V.; (SardiNIA) J. Ding, Y.Q., F. Cucca, E.G.L.; (SHIP) M.D., R.R., A.T., U.V.; (STR) M. Frånberg, A. Hamsten, R.J. Strawbridge, E.I.; (TRAILS) C.A.H., A.J.O., H.R., P.J.v.d.M.; (TwinsUK) M.M., C. Menni, T.D.S.; (UKHLS) B.P.P., E.Z.; (ULSAM) V. Giedraitis, A.P.M., A. Mahajan, E.I.; (WGHS) F.G., L.M.R., P.M.R., D.I.C.; (YFS) M.K., T.L., L.-P.L., O.T.R.

ICBP analysis. T. Blake, C.Y.D., G.B.E, J.K., L. Lin, P.F.O., P.J.M., Q.T.N., R. Jansen, R. Joehanes, A.M.E., A.V.

Replication study contributor. (MVP) J.N.H., A. Giri, D.R.V.E., Y.V.S., K.C., J.M.G., P.W.F.W., P.S.T., C.P.K., A.M.H., C.J.O., T.L.E.; (EGCUT) T.E., R.M., L.M., A. Metspalu.

Airwave Health Monitoring Study. E.E., H.G., A.-C.V., R.P., I. Karaman, I.T., P.E.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Paul Elliott or Mark J. Caulfield.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

K.W. is a commercial partnerships manager for Genomics England, a UK Government company. M.A.N. consults for Illumina Inc, the Michael J. Fox Foundation and University of California Healthcare, among others. A.S.B. has received grants outside of this work from Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Biogen and Bioverativ and personal fees from Novartis. J. Danesh has the following competing interests: Pfizer Population Research Advisory Panel (grant), AstraZeneca (grant), Wellcome Trust (grant), UK Medical Research Council (grant), Pfizer (grant), Novartis (grant), NHS Blood and Transplant (grant), UK Medical Research Council (grant), British Heart Foundation (grant), UK National Institute of Health Research (grant), European Commission (grant), Merck Sharp and Dohme UK Atherosclerosis (personal fees), Novartis Cardiovascular and Metabolic Advisory Board (personal fees), British Heart Foundation (grant), European Research Council (grant), Merck (grant). B.M.P. serves on the DSMB of a clinical trial funded by Zoll LifeCor and on the Steering Committee of the Yale Open Data Access Project funded by Johnson & Johnson. M.J.C. is Chief Scientist for Genomics England, a UK Government company.

Additional information

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

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 GWAS discovery Manhattan plots.

(a-c) Manhattan plots for systolic blood pressure (SBP) (a), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (b), and pulse pressure (PP) (c). P-value results from the GWAS discovery meta-analysis (n = 757,601), were derived using inverse variance fixed effects meta-analysis and they are plotted on a –log10 scale for all SNPs with minor allele frequency (MAF) ≥ 1%. SNPs within the 274 known loci (± 500 kb; linkage disequilibrium r2 ≥ 0.1) are highlighted in green.

Supplementary Figure 2 Effect sizes of all blood pressure–associated loci.

(a) Plot shows strong correlation between the published effect size estimates (x-axis) from literature vs. the effect sizes from our discovery meta-analysis (y-axis), for known SNPs, color-coded according to the published primary trait from the first published report. From the 357 validated SNPs listed in Supplementary Table 4 from the 274 published loci, 327 are available within the MAF ≥ 1% HRC-imputed data. For comparison of effect sizes, we only consider 299 such SNPs that have been identified from main-effect genetic association studies within Europeans (that is excluding any SNPs from interaction/stratified/multi-phenotype analysis, or from studies of other ancestries). For reliable comparison of effect sizes, we further restrict to the 284 known SNPs that reach genome-wide significance within the discovery meta-analysis for at least one blood pressure trait. The r2 value is presented to show the correlation between published and observed effect sizes. (b-d) Trait-specific plots for SBP (b), DBP (c) and PP (d) (SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; PP, pulse pressure). Across all plots, the 284 “known” SNPs (black squares) from a are compared against the 325 novel sentinel SNPs from the 2-stage analysis (red circles), the 210 novel sentinel SNPs from the 1-stage analysis (green triangles), and the 92 SNPs (blue diamonds) replicated for the first time from Hoffman et al.9. Each SNP is only plotted in one of the trait-specific plots, according to the published primary trait for the known SNPs, or the primary trait for the novel/replicated SNPs. For all SNPs, we show the relationship between MAF on the x-axis and the effect size (mmHg) on the y-axis, where results are taken from the UKB+ICBP discovery meta-analysis. All meta-analysis results were computed using inverse variance fixed effects models. The different symbols and colors distinguish the “known” vs “novel-2stage” vs “novel-1stage” vs “replicated-Hoffman” SNPs, and show that, in general, the novel SNPs have smaller effect sizes than known SNPs, and that there is no significant difference (P = 0.447) between the effect sizes of the 1-stage (n = 757,601) and 2-stage (n = 1,006,863) novel SNPs. (UKB, UK Biobank; ICBP, International Consortium of Blood Pressure).

Supplementary Figure 3 Venn diagram of novel locus results.

For all 535 novel loci, we show the blood pressure traits associated with each locus. We present the 2-stage loci first, followed by the 1-stage loci. The locus names provided in alphabetical order correspond to the nearest annotated gene. SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; PP, pulse pressure; UKB, UK Biobank; ICBP, International Consortium of Blood Pressure.

Supplementary Figure 4 Overview of functional annotation and prioritization of genome-wide associated variants and genes.

SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; LD, linkage disequilibrium; eQTL, expression quantitative trait loci; UCSC, University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) genome browser; IPA, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software (IPA®,QIAGEN Redwood City,www.qiagen.com/ingenuity); DEPICT, Data-driven Expression Prioritized Integration for Complex Traits; GREAT, Genomic Regions Enrichment of Annotations Tool.

Supplementary Figure 5 DEPICT enrichment analysis.

DEPICT software was used to investigate enrichment of a range of biological properties. In each case, we compared known sentinel SNPs (n = 357) to all known and novel SNPs with P < 1 x 10−12 (n = 227). The gene set enrichment analysis algorithm is described in Pers et al.66. Enrichment –log P-value is reported for both groups; we also present delta –log P-value as a measure of novelty introduced by novel associations reported. Enrichment categories are as follows. (a) Enrichment of tissues and cell types. (b) GO annotation. (c) Protein-protein interaction subnetwork annotation. (d) Mammalian phenotype annotation.

Supplementary Figure 6 Enrichments of eQTLs.

535 novel blood pressure associated SNPs and the SNPs in LD r2 > 0.8 were annotated for their effect on gene expression using the GTEx portal. The number of eGenes associated with blood pressure SNPs in a given tissue/cell type was normalized with the total number of eGenes in that tissue, and Z-score was calculated using the trimmed mean and standard deviation of the normalized scores. Tissues of the same tissue group were colored the same.

Supplementary Figure 7 FORGE DNase I–sensitive region enrichment in known sentinel SNPs, compared to known and novel sentinel SNP associations for blood pressure.

Sentinel SNPs were investigated for enrichment in ENCODE DNase I regulatory regions using FORGE. The background probability of overlap is determined from the 1,000 background set overlap counts and the probability of the observed test result under a binomial distribution is calculated. The P-value thresholds of 0.05 and 0.01 are corrected for multiple testing by division by the number of tissue groupings tested, and the corrected threshold is used. Strongest enrichment in known SNPs was seen in vasculature (Human Aortic artery fibroblast (AoAF) and also Human Villous Mesenchymal Fibroblasts (HVMF) found in placenta). Enrichment in all known and novel SNPs was increased across vasculature (AoAF; HMVEC, Human microvascular endothelial cells) and highly vascularized tissues. Tissues in red are significant after correction for false discovery.

Supplementary Figure 8 Ingenuity pathway analysis of blood pressure genes.

Ingenuity pathway analysis for genes mapped to 357 sentinel SNPs at 274 known loci and genes mapped to all 901 loci. Sentinel gene mapping is compared to genes identified by extended LD (r2 > 0.8). Pathway enrichment is represented as –log P-value. (a) Canonical pathway enrichment. (b) Upstream regulator enrichment. (c) Disease and Biofunction enrichment.

Supplementary Figure 9 Exploring known and novel drug mechanisms in blood pressure.

The figure summarizes known and novel target opportunities highlighted by blood pressure genetics. Ingenuity pathway analysis was used to create a network of 6,562 genes showing direct interaction with 145 known blood pressure target genes. This network was compared with all genes that are either directly associated with blood pressure or linked by LD (r2 > 0.8). Overlap between genetic associated genes and the BP drug interactome demonstrates genetic support for known drug mechanisms. Drugged or druggable genes showing genetic association with blood pressure, but no interaction with the known BP drug interactome, represent potentially new mechanisms in blood pressure drug development and repositioning. Number of known and novel drugged/druggable gene associations are shown in parentheses.

Supplementary Figure 10 Comparison of β effect sizes between individuals of European (n = 757,601), African (n = 7,782) and South Asian (n = 10,323) ancestry.

(a-f) Scatterplots showing the direction of the standardized regression coefficient (beta) of novel (red) and known (grey) blood pressure variants between Europeans and Africans (a-c) and South Asians (d-f), on the three studied blood pressure phenotypes.

Supplementary Figure 11 Correlation and distribution of minor allele frequencies of blood pressure variants in individuals of European (n = 757,601), African (n = 7,782) and South Asian (n = 10,323) ancestry.

(a,b) Scatterplots showing the correlation and the distribution of MAF of novel (red) and known (grey) blood pressure variants between Europeans and Africans (a) and Europeans and South Asians (b). ρ is the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Supplementary Figure 12 Ethnicity clustering performed using PCA.

PC1 is plotted against PC2 for all n = 486,683 UK Biobank participants post-QC, color-coded according to the five ethnic clusters created from our K-means PCA clustering, from which only “White” Caucasians are selected for analysis of individuals of European ancestry. (a) Plot showing the clustering for all subjects. (b) Plots showing the subsets of individuals selected for race-stratified analysis, after combining information together from both the PCA clustering and the self-reported ethnicity. PCA, principal component analysis; QC, quality control; PCs, principal components.

Supplementary Figure 13 Quantile–quantile plots.

(a-c) QQ plots of results for systolic blood pressure (SBP) (a), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (b), and pulse pressure (PP) (c) from GWAS discovery (n = 757,601). The black curves are based on all SNPs in the corresponding analysis, with MAF ≥ 1%. The green curves are results after excluding SNPs within the 274 known loci (± 500 kb; linkage disequilibrium r2 ≥ 0.1). The P-values have been derived from inverse variance fixed effects meta-analysis.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–13, Supplementary Table Legends and Supplementary Notes 1 and 2

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Tables 1–25

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evangelou, E., Warren, H.R., Mosen-Ansorena, D. et al. Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits. Nat Genet 50, 1412–1425 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0205-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0205-x

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing