Estimation of complex effect-size distributions using summary-level statistics from genome-wide association studies across 32 complex traits
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
We developed a likelihood-based approach for analyzing summary-level statistics and external linkage disequilibrium information to estimate effect-size distributions of common variants, characterized by the proportion of underlying susceptibility SNPs and a flexible normal-mixture model for their effects. Analysis of results available across 32 genome-wide association studies showed that, while all traits are highly polygenic, there is wide diversity in the degree and nature of polygenicity. Psychiatric diseases and traits related to mental health and ability appear to be most polygenic, involving a continuum of small effects. Most other traits, including major chronic diseases, involve clusters of SNPs that have distinct magnitudes of effects. We predict that the sample sizes needed to identify SNPs that explain most heritability found in genome-wide association studies will range from a few hundred thousand to multiple millions, depending on the underlying effect-size distributions of the traits. Accordingly, we project the risk-prediction ability of polygenic risk scores across a wide variety of diseases.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 288
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [42]42. Holland, D., Fan, C. C., Frei, O., Shadrin, A. A. & Smeland…, O. B. Estimating Degree Of Polygenicity, Causal Effect Size Variance, And Confounding Bias In GWAS Summary - Statistics. bioRxiv (2017).
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Qi, G., Park, J.-H., & Chatterjee, N.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Dongguk University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Chatterjee, Nilanjan
- Venue
- Nature Genetics
- Published
- 2018-08-13
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1318-1326
- ISSN
- 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-1718
- OpenAlex
- W2887191265
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 20.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Keywords
- effect size distribution, polygenicity, complex traits, normal mixture models, linkage disequilibrium, common genetic variants, mental illness, chronic disease, polygenic risk score, heritability, sample size determination, likelihood estimation
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Humans, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Risk Factors, Linkage Disequilibrium, Likelihood Functions, Genome, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Multifactorial Inheritance, 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