Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GRASP: analysis of genotype–phenotype results from 1390 genome-wide association studies and corresponding open access database

Open access
Leslie, Richard, O’Donnell, Christopher J., Johnson, Andrew D.·2014·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Summary: We created a deeply extracted and annotated database of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) results. GRASP v1.0 contains >6.2 million SNP-phenotype association from among 1390 GWAS studies. We re-annotated GWAS results with 16 annotation sources including some rarely compared to GWAS results (e.g. RNAediting sites, lincRNAs, PTMs). Motivation: To create a high-quality resource to facilitate further use and interpretation of human GWAS results in order to address important scientific questions. Results: GWAS have grown exponentially, with increases in sample sizes and markers tested, and continuing bias toward European ancestry samples. GRASP contains >100 000 phenotypes, roughly: eQTLs (71.5%), metabolite QTLs (21.2%), methylation QTLs (4.4%) and diseases, biomarkers and other traits (2.8%). cis-eQTLs, meQTLs, mQTLs and MHC region SNPs are highly enriched among significant results. After removing these categories, GRASP still contains a greater proportion of studies and results than comparable GWAS catalogs. Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors pre-dominate remaining GWAS results, followed by immunological, neurological and cancer traits. Significant results in GWAS display a highly gene-centric tendency. Sex chromosome X (OR = 0.18[0.16-0.20]) and Y (OR = 0.003[0.001-0.01]) genes are depleted for GWAS results. Gene length is correlated with GWAS results at nominal significance (P ≤ 0.05) levels. We show this gene-length correlation decays at increasingly more stringent P-value thresholds. Potential pleotropic genes and SNPs enriched for multi-phenotype association in GWAS are identified. However, we note possible population stratification at some of these loci. Finally, via re-annotation we identify compelling functional hypotheses at GWAS loci, in some cases unrealized in studies to date. Conclusion: Pooling summary-level GWAS results and re-annotating with bioinformatics predictions and molecular features provides a good platform for new insights. Availability: The GRASP database is available at http://apps.nhlbi.nih.gov/grasp. Contact: johnsonad2@nhlbi.nih.gov

Overview

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/btu273

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Leslie, R., O’Donnell, C. J., & Johnson, A. D.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2014-06-11
Volume
30
Issue
12
Pages
i185-i194
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2077318478
Cited by
254
References
11
FWCI
15.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GRASP: analysis of genotype–phenotype results from 1390 genome-wide association studies and corresponding open access database. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu273
The paper
Leslie, R., O’Donnell, C. J., & Johnson, A. D. (2014). GRASP: analysis of genotype–phenotype results from 1390 genome-wide association studies and corresponding open access database. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu273

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.