Cited by 3,627Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies

Open access
Zhou, Xiang, Stephens, Matthew·2012·Nature Genetics

Abstract

Linear mixed models have attracted considerable attention recently as a powerful and effective tool for accounting for population stratification and relatedness in genetic association tests. However, existing methods for exact computation of standard test statistics are computationally impractical for even moderate-sized genome-wide association studies. To address this issue, several approximate methods have been proposed. Here, we present an efficient exact method, which we refer to as genome-wide efficient mixed-model association (GEMMA), that makes approximations unnecessary in many contexts. This method is approximately n times faster than the widely used exact method known as efficient mixed-model association (EMMA), where n is the sample size, making exact genome-wide association analysis computationally practical for large numbers of individuals.

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/ng.2310

Cites

19 of 19 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. [18]Searle SR Casella G McCulloch CE Variance components 2006 Wiley New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, X., & Stephens, M.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zhou, Xiang
  • Stephens, Matthew
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2012-06-17
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
821-824
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W1980168725
Cited by
3,627
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 390 · 2025: 424 · 2024: 469 · 2023: 378 · 2022: 396 · 2021: 370 · 2020: 257 · 2019: 238 · 2018: 199 · 2017: 150 · 2016: 135 · 2015: 101 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 5
FWCI
42.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (085475)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL092206, HL092206)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R56HG002585, HG02585, R01HG002585)
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, linear mixed models, population stratification, relatedness, Gemma, Emma, computational efficiency, genetic association testing
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Genetic, Software, Genome, Human, Linear Models, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Population Groups, 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