Cited by 678Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Estimation of effect size distribution from genome-wide association studies and implications for future discoveries

Open access
Park, Ju-Hyun, Wacholder, Sholom, Gail, Mitchell H, Peters, Ulrike, Jacobs, Kevin B, Chanock, Stephen J, Chatterjee, Nilanjan·2010·Nature Genetics

Abstract

We report a set of tools to estimate the number of susceptibility loci and the distribution of their effect sizes for a trait on the basis of discoveries from existing genome-wide association studies (GWASs). We propose statistical power calculations for future GWASs using estimated distributions of effect sizes. Using reported GWAS findings for height, Crohn's disease and breast, prostate and colorectal (BPC) cancers, we determine that each of these traits is likely to harbor additional loci within the spectrum of low-penetrance common variants. These loci, which can be identified from sufficiently powerful GWASs, together could explain at least 15-20% of the known heritability of these traits. However, for BPC cancers, which have modest familial aggregation, our analysis suggests that risk models based on common variants alone will have modest discriminatory power (63.5% area under curve), even with new discoveries.

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.610

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • If half a dozen common variants explain 10% of population risk, the remaining risk is due to many variants each explaining much less than 1% with genotype relative risks below 1.1.

    “If half a dozen common variants explain 10% of risk in the population, the remainder is attributable to a myriad of variants that each explain considerably less than 1% and have genotype relative risks less than 1.112.”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Sample sizes can be extrapolated from the range of variant effects in initial discovery samples.

    “In fact, sample sizes can be extrapolated from the range of variant effects in initial discovery samples12”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

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
Park, J.-H., Wacholder, S., Gail, M. H., Peters, U., Jacobs, K. B., Chanock, S. J., & Chatterjee, N.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chatterjee, Nilanjan
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2010-06-20
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
570-575
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2138069158
Cited by
678
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 85
FWCI
47.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
  • National Cancer Institute
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
effect size distribution, genome-wide association study, genetic susceptibility loci, statistical power, sample size, heritability, height, Crohn's disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, risk prediction model, discriminatory power
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Body Height, Breast Neoplasms, Crohn Disease, Female, Gene Frequency, Genotype, Humans, Male, Models, Genetic, Prostatic Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms, Statistics, Nonparametric, Penetrance, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, 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