Cited by 74Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Post-GWAS: where next? More samples, more SNPs or more biology?

Open access
Marjoram, P, Zubair, A, Nuzhdin, S V·2014·Heredity

Abstract

The power of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) rests on several foundations: (i) there is a significant amount of additive genetic variation, (ii) individual causal polymorphisms often have sizable effects and (iii) they segregate at moderate-to-intermediate frequencies, or will be effectively 'tagged' by polymorphisms that do. Each of these assumptions has recently been questioned. (i) Why should genetic variation appear additive given that the underlying molecular networks are highly nonlinear? (ii) A new generation of relatedness-based analyses directs us back to the nearly infinitesimal model for effect sizes that quantitative genetics was long based upon. (iii) Larger effect causal polymorphisms are often low frequency, as selection might lead us to expect. Here, we review these issues and other findings that appear to question many of the foundations of the optimism GWAS prompted. We then present a roadmap emerging as one possible future for quantitative genetics. We argue that in future GWAS should move beyond purely statistical grounds. One promising approach is to build upon the combination of population genetic models and molecular biological knowledge. This combined treatment, however, requires fitting experimental data to models that are very complex, as well as accurate capturing of the uncertainty of resulting inference. This problem can be resolved through Bayesian analysis and tools such as approximate Bayesian computation-a method growing in popularity in population genetic analysis. We show a case example of anterior-posterior segmentation in Drosophila, and argue that similar approaches will be helpful as a GWAS augmentation, in human and agricultural research.

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 · 10.1038/hdy.2013.52

Cites

81 of 81 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Beavis WD (1994). The power and deceit of QTL experiments: lessons from comparitive QTL studies. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Corn and Sorghum Industrial Research Conference, American Seed Trade Association. Washington, DC 250-266.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marjoram, P., Zubair, A., & Nuzhdin, S. V.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Marjoram, P
Venue
Heredity
Published
2013-06-12
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
79-88
ISSN
  • 0018-067X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2540
OpenAlex
W2040316499
Cited by
74
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (R01MH100879, 1101060)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH091561, R01MH100879)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG002790)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U01GM103804, R01GM098741)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
genome-wide association study, additive genetic variance, effect size distribution, low-frequency variants, selection, population genetic models, Bayesian analysis, approximate Bayesian computation, quantitative genetics
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Genetics, Population, Humans, Models, Genetic, Genome, Human, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Quantitative Trait Loci, Gene Regulatory Networks, Genome-Wide Association Study

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