Cited by 1Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

High false sign rates in transcriptome-wide association studies

Open access
Gerlach, Peter A., Milind, Nikhil, Spence, Jeffrey P., Pritchard, Jonathan K.·2026·Nature Genetics

Abstract

Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) are widely used to identify genes involved in complex traits and to infer the direction of gene effects on traits. However, despite their popularity, it remains unclear how accurately TWAS recover the true direction of a gene’s effect on a trait. Here we estimate the false sign rate of TWAS for plasma proteins, leveraging the expectation that increased gene expression should generally increase protein expression. We then extend this framework to complex traits, where loss-of-function burden tests provide the expected direction of effect. In both analyses, we observe high discordance with expectations, with TWAS showing a false sign rate of 23% for plasma proteins and 33% for complex traits. We propose that much of the sign discordance arises when expression quantitative trait loci in non-trait-relevant tissues tag haplotypes associated with traits in genome-wide association studies via distinct, tightly linked regulatory variants, yielding spurious TWAS associations with the correct genes but with unreliable direction of effect. These findings show that TWAS-based direction-of-effect estimates should be interpreted with caution and raise concerns about the reliability of TWAS more broadly.

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/s41588-026-02796-4

Cites

58 of 58 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

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. Morrison, J. GWASBrewer: simulate realistic GWAS summary statistics. R package version 0.3.0.0237. GitHub https://github.com/jean997/GWASBrewer (2025). · DOI

Authors
Gerlach, P. A., Milind, N., Spence, J. P., & Pritchard, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Gerlach, Peter A.
  • Milind, Nikhil
  • Spence, Jeffrey P.
  • Pritchard, Jonathan K.
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2026-10-22
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W7223179007
Cited by
1
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (R01HG014005, U01HG012069)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
transcriptome-wide association study, direction of effect, gene expression, plasma proteins, complex traits, expression quantitative trait loci, regulatory variants, haplotype tagging, spurious association, methodological reliability

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