Cited by 1,112Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association summary statistics using MTAG

Open access
23andMe Research Team, Turley, Patrick, Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, Walters, Raymond K., Maghzian, Omeed, Okbay, Aysu, Lee, James J., Fontana, Mark Alan +12 more·2018·Nature Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We introduce multi-trait analysis of GWAS (MTAG), a method for joint analysis of summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of different traits, possibly from overlapping samples. We apply MTAG to summary statistics for depressive symptoms (N eff = 354,862), neuroticism (N = 168,105), and subjective well-being (N = 388,538). As compared to the 32, 9, and 13 genome-wide significant loci identified in the single-trait GWAS (most of which are themselves novel), MTAG increases the number of associated loci to 64, 37, and 49, respectively. Moreover, association statistics from MTAG yield more informative bioinformatics analyses and increase the variance explained by polygenic scores by approximately 25%, matching theoretical expectations.

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/s41588-017-0009-4

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?

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
23andMe Research Team, Turley, P., Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, Walters, R. K., Maghzian, O., Okbay, A., Lee, J. J., Fontana, M. A., Nguyen-Viet, T. A., Wedow, R., Zacher, M., Furlotte, N. A., Magnusson, P., Oskarsson, S., Johannesson, M., Visscher, P. M., Laibson, D., Cesarini, D., Neale, B. M., & Benjamin, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Hospital for Special Surgery (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • 23andMe (United States) (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Corresponding author
  • Turley, Patrick
  • Cesarini, David
  • Neale, Benjamin M.
  • Benjamin, Daniel J.
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2018-01-01
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
229-237
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2780560743
Cited by
1,112
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 132 · 2025: 181 · 2024: 173 · 2023: 158 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 1
FWCI
38.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1144083)
  • University of Southern California
  • Wellcome Trust (213422/Z/18/Z)
  • Broad Institute
  • Vetenskapsrådet (421-2013-1061)
  • National Institutes of Health (MH107649)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/N01104X/1, MR/N01104X/2)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/S008349/1)
  • National Institute on Aging (T32AG000186, AG005842, R01AG042568, P01AG005842, P30AG012810, P30AG034532)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH109539, R01MH107649, R01MH101244)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01HD031921, R01HD073342, R01HD060726)
  • H2020 European Research Council (647648)
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
multi-trait analysis, MTAG, genome-wide association summary statistics, depressive symptoms, neuroticism, subjective well-being, polygenic risk score, genetic loci, personality traits, overlapping samples
MeSH terms
Neuroticism, Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depression, Health, Humans, Phenotype, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Multifactorial Inheritance, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genetic Association Studies, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Datasets as Topic

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