Cited by 635Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Estimation of pleiotropy between complex diseases using single-nucleotide polymorphism-derived genomic relationships and restricted maximum likelihood

Open access
Lee, S.H., Yang, J., Goddard, M.E., Visscher, P.M., Wray, N.R.·2012·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Summary: Genetic correlations are the genome-wide aggregate effects of causal variants affecting multiple traits. Traditionally, genetic correlations between complex traits are estimated from pedigree studies, but such estimates can be confounded by shared environmental factors. Moreover, for diseases, low prevalence rates imply that even if the true genetic correlation between disorders was high, co-aggregation of disorders in families might not occur or could not be distinguished from chance. We have developed and implemented statistical methods based on linear mixed models to obtain unbiased estimates of the genetic correlation between pairs of quantitative traits or pairs of binary traits of complex diseases using population-based case–control studies with genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data. The method is validated in a simulation study and applied to estimate genetic correlation between various diseases from Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium data in a series of bivariate analyses. We estimate a significant positive genetic correlation between risk of Type 2 diabetes and hypertension of ~0.31 (SE 0.14, P = 0.024). Availability: Our methods, appropriate for both quantitative and binary traits, are implemented in the freely available software GCTA (http://www.complextraitgenomics.com/software/gcta/reml_bivar.html). Contact: hong.lee@uq.edu.au Supplementary Information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts474

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Genetic correlation was estimated with REML accounting for sampling variation, whereas transcriptomic effect correlation was estimated as sample Spearman correlation between DE point estimates, which is downwardly biased in a sample size dependent manner.

    “A notable difference between the transcriptomic and genetic analyses in this study is that the genetic correlation was estimated with a REML approach that accounts for sampling variation30, whereas the transcriptomic effect correlation was estimated as the sample Spearman correlation between differential expression point estimates, which is downwardly biased in a sample size dependent manner (”

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
Lee, S. H., Yang, J., Goddard, M. E., Visscher, P. M., & Wray, N. R.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Lee, S.H.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2012-07-26
Volume
28
Issue
19
Pages
2540-2542
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2098143048
Cited by
635
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 32
FWCI
23.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (076113)
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council (FT0991360, DP1093502)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (613601, 613608, 613672, 1011506)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM 075091, R01GM075091)
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
pleiotropy, genetic correlation, complex diseases, single nucleotide polymorphisms, genomic relationships, restricted maximum likelihood, linear mixed models, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, binary traits, case-control study, GCTA, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Hypertension, Models, Genetic, Pedigree, Phenotype, Software, Likelihood Functions, Linear Models, Computational Biology, Quantitative Trait, Heritable, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genomics, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genetic Pleiotropy

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