Cited by 128Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem.

Open access
Krishna Kumar, Siddharth, Feldman, Marcus W., Rehkopf, David H., Tuljapurkar, Shripad·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) seek to understand the relationship between complex phenotype(s) (e.g., height) and up to millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Early analyses of GWASs are commonly believed to have "missed" much of the additive genetic variance estimated from correlations between relatives. A more recent method, genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA), obtains much higher estimates of heritability using a model of random SNP effects correlated between genotypically similar individuals. GCTA has now been applied to many phenotypes from schizophrenia to scholastic achievement. However, recent studies question GCTA's estimates of heritability. Here, we show that GCTA applied to current SNP data cannot produce reliable or stable estimates of heritability. We show first that GCTA depends sensitively on all singular values of a high-dimensional genetic relatedness matrix (GRM). When the assumptions in GCTA are satisfied exactly, we show that the heritability estimates produced by GCTA will be biased and the standard errors will likely be inaccurate. When the population is stratified, we find that GRMs typically have highly skewed singular values, and we prove that the many small singular values cannot be estimated reliably. Hence, GWAS data are necessarily overfit by GCTA which, as a result, produces high estimates of heritability. We also show that GCTA's heritability estimates are sensitive to the chosen sample and to measurement errors in the phenotype. We illustrate our results using the Framingham dataset. Our analysis suggests that results obtained using GCTA, and the results' qualitative interpretations, should be interpreted with great caution.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1520109113

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The study directly addresses the concern about lack of replication by replicating results across five countries and health systems.

    “In addition to providing exceptional statistical power, the study directly addresses the concern of lack of replication in research findings 31,32 replicating results across 5 countries and health systems.”

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
Krishna Kumar, S., Feldman, M. W., Rehkopf, D. H., & Tuljapurkar, S.
Affiliations
  • Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020;
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-12-22
Volume
113
Issue
1
Pages
E61-70
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2222803572
Cited by
128
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18
FWCI
9.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (AG22500)
  • Center for Computational, Evolutionary and Human Genomics, Stanford University
  • National Institute on Aging (K01AG047280, P01AG022500, AG22500)
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
GCTA, missing heritability, heritability estimation, singular values, overfitting, population stratification, measurement error, single nucleotide polymorphisms, complex traits, Framingham Heart Study
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Genotype, Humans, Phenotype, Quantitative Trait, Heritable, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study, 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