Cited by 97Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

TOP-LD: A tool to explore linkage disequilibrium with TOPMed whole-genome sequence data

Open access
Huang, Le, Rosen, Jonathan D., Sun, Quan, Chen, Jiawen, Wheeler, Marsha M., Zhou, Ying, Min, Yuan-I, Kooperberg, Charles +17 more·2022·The American Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

Current publicly available tools that allow rapid exploration of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between markers (e.g., HaploReg and LDlink) are based on whole-genome sequence (WGS) data from 2,504 individuals in the 1000 Genomes Project. Here, we present TOP-LD, an online tool to explore LD inferred with high-coverage (∼30×) WGS data from 15,578 individuals in the NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program. TOP-LD provides a significant upgrade compared to current LD tools, as the TOPMed WGS data provide a more comprehensive representation of genetic variation than the 1000 Genomes data, particularly for rare variants and in the specific populations that we analyzed. For example, TOP-LD encompasses LD information for 150.3, 62.2, and 36.7 million variants for European, African, and East Asian ancestral samples, respectively, offering 2.6- to 9.1-fold increase in variant coverage compared to HaploReg 4.0 or LDlink. In addition, TOP-LD includes tens of thousands of structural variants (SVs). We demonstrate the value of TOP-LD in fine-mapping at the GGT1 locus associated with gamma glutamyltransferase in the African ancestry participants in UK Biobank. Beyond fine-mapping, TOP-LD can facilitate a wide range of applications that are based on summary statistics and estimates of LD. TOP-LD is freely available online.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.04.006

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The index variant rs7481951 was not available in FUMA and was replaced by rs10833712, its best tag variant (r2 = 0.827) according to TopLD.

    “The index variant rs7481951 was not available in FUMA and was replaced by rs10833712, its best tag variant (r2 = 0.827) according to TopLD45.”

    From Consensus meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (2026) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Main text (page not available) describes TOP-LD as a tool that reports LD proxies and their R² values, supporting its identification as the tool used. It does not report either rs7481951 or rs10833712, their alleged R² of 0.827, or whether the index variant was unavailable in FUMA. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, L., Rosen, J. D., Sun, Q., Chen, J., Wheeler, M. M., Zhou, Y., Min, Y.-I., Kooperberg, C., Conomos, M. P., Stilp, A. M., Rich, S. S., Rotter, J. I., Manichaikul, A., Loos, R. J. F., Kenny, E. E., Blackwell, T. W., Smith, A. V., Jun, G., Sedlazeck, F. J., Metcalf, G., Boerwinkle, E., Raffield, L. M., Reiner, A. P., Auer, P. L., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • The Lundquist Institute (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
Corresponding author
  • Auer, Paul L.
  • Li, Yun
Venue
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
109
Issue
6
Pages
1175-1181
ISSN
0002-9297 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225286463
Cited by
97
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 4
FWCI
11.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
National Institutes of Health (KL2TR002490, R01HL129132, R01HL146500, U01DA052713, U01HG011720, U24 AR076730)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
linkage disequilibrium, TOPMed, web-based tool, rare variants, structural variants, fine mapping, GGT1, gamma-glutamyl transferase, African ancestry, 1000 Genomes Project, genetic variation
MeSH terms
Whole Genome Sequencing, Humans, Linkage Disequilibrium, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Asian People, Genome-Wide Association Study, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review