Cited by 1,849Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Genome-wide association studies

Open access
Uffelmann, Emil, Huang, Qin Qin, Munung, Nchangwi Syntia, de Vries, Jantina, Okada, Yukinori, Martin, Alicia R., Martin, Hilary C., Lappalainen, Tuuli +1 more·2021·Nature Reviews Methods Primers

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) test hundreds of thousands of genetic variants across many genomes to find those statistically associated with a specific trait or disease. This methodology has generated a myriad of robust associations for a range of traits and diseases, and the number of associated variants is expected to grow steadily as GWAS sample sizes increase. GWAS results have a range of applications, such as gaining insight into a phenotype’s underlying biology, estimating its heritability, calculating genetic correlations, making clinical risk predictions, informing drug development programmes and inferring potential causal relationships between risk factors and health outcomes. In this Primer, we provide the reader with an introduction to GWAS, explaining their statistical basis and how they are conducted, describe state-of-the art approaches and discuss limitations and challenges, concluding with an overview of the current and future applications for GWAS results. Uffelmann et al. describe the key considerations and best practices for conducting genome-wide association studies (GWAS), techniques for deriving functional inferences from the results and applications of GWAS in understanding disease risk and trait architecture. The Primer also provides information on the best practices for data sharing and discusses important ethical considerations when considering GWAS populations and data.

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/s43586-021-00056-9

Cites

293 of 293 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?

  • Misinterpretation or oversights in WGA can lead to inaccurate biological conclusions.

    “Misinterpretation or oversights can lead to inaccurate biological conclusions, highlighting the importance of precision in WGA algorithms [80].”

    From Whole-Genome Alignment: Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions (2024) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Experimentation section (page unavailable) says biases and errors can enter a GWAS at each step and calls for careful planning and standardized quality control. The Abstract (page unavailable) also warns that limitations can hamper conclusions about the biological meaning of GWAS results. These passages support the general warning, but the paper discusses GWAS, not precision in WGA algorithms. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There has been a remarkable increase in the last 15 years in the availability and sharing of genetic data, which enabled genome-wide association studies and characterization of the genetic architecture of complex human conditions and traits.

    “Beyond oncology, there has been a remarkable increase in the last 15 years in the availability and sharing of genetic data, which enabled genome-wide association studies 12 and characterization of the genetic architecture of complex human conditions and traits 13 .”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · 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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uffelmann, E., Huang, Q. Q., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., Okada, Y., Martin, A. R., Martin, H. C., Lappalainen, T., & Posthuma, D.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Immunology Frontier Research Center, The University of Osaka (JP)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
Venue
Nature Reviews Methods Primers
Published
2021-08-26
Volume
1
Issue
1
ISSN
2662-8449 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3195285310
Cited by
1,849
References
288
Citations by year
2026: 292 · 2025: 512 · 2024: 546 · 2023: 304 · 2022: 163 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
38.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Methods Primers (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP20ek0109413, JP20km0405217, JP20gm4010006, JP20ek0410075, JP20gm4010006, JP20ek0410075, JP20km0405211)
  • Wellcome Trust (219600/Z/19/Z, 098051)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VICI 435-14-005, 024.004.012, 435-14-005)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (19H01021 and 20K21834, 834057, 20K21834, 19H01021)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL142028, U24HL135600)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH106842)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (UM1HG008901, U54HG009790)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM122924)
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
genome-wide association study, genetic variants, disease risk, heritability, genetic correlation, clinical risk prediction, drug development, causal inference, data sharing, research ethics

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