Cited by 526Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structure

Population structure, differential bias and genomic control in a large-scale, case-control association study

Clayton, David G, Walker, Neil M, Smyth, Deborah J, Pask, Rebecca, Cooper, Jason D, Maier, Lisa M, Smink, Luc J, Lam, Alex C +11 more·2005·Nature Genetics

Abstract

The main problems in drawing causal inferences from epidemiological case-control studies are confounding by unmeasured extraneous factors, selection bias and differential misclassification of exposure. In genetics the first of these, in the form of population structure, has dominated recent debate. Population structure explained part of the significant +11.2% inflation of test statistics we observed in an analysis of 6,322 nonsynonymous SNPs in 816 cases of type 1 diabetes and 877 population-based controls from Great Britain. The remainder of the inflation resulted from differential bias in genotype scoring between case and control DNA samples, which originated from two laboratories, causing false-positive associations. To avoid excluding SNPs and losing valuable information, we extended the genomic control method by applying a variable downweighting to each SNP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ng1653

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Stringent QC filters were applied separately to each of the 8 groups to remove poorly performing samples.

    “As we used genotype data from multiple sources, it was important to apply stringent QC filters, as differential genotyping error rates between groups could result in spurious associations when the data are combined 50, 51.These filters were applied separately to each of these 8 groups to remove poorly performing samples using tools implemented in PLINK v1.0552.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clayton, D. G., Walker, N. M., Smyth, D. J., Pask, R., Cooper, J. D., Maier, L. M., Smink, L. J., Lam, A. C., Ovington, N. R., Stevens, H. E., Nutland, S., Howson, J. M. M., Faham, M., Moorhead, M., Jones, H. B., Falkowski, M., Hardenbol, P., Willis, T. D., & Todd, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Clayton, David G
  • Todd, John A
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2005-10-09
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
1243-1246
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2039608769
Cited by
526
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 25
FWCI
29.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
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 diversity and population structure
Keywords
population structure, genomic control, type 1 diabetes, non-synonymous SNPs, case-control association, false positive association, confounding
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, DNA, False Positive Reactions, Genetics, Population, Genotype, United Kingdom, Humans, Lymphocytes, Models, Genetic, Bias, Case-Control Studies, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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