PreprintCited by 48Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Meta-Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies

de Bakker, Paul I.W., Neale, Benjamin M., Daly, Mark J.·2010·Cold Spring Harbor Protocols

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Individual genome-wide association studies have only limited power to find novel loci underlying complex traits and common diseases. With relatively modest sample and effect sizes, a true association between genotype and phenotype may never meet genome-wide statistical significance (P < 5 × 10-8) in a single study. Through meta-analysis, novel susceptibility loci can be discovered by effectively summing the statistical evidence of individually underpowered studies. Most genetic discoveries for complex traits are now made through meta-analysis collaborations, which so far have been restricted to single-locus analyses, testing for main effects at a single polymorphism at a time. A key benefit of this approach is that individual-level genotype (and phenotype) data do not need to be exchanged between research groups. In this article, we focus on meta-analysis at individual single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), paying particular attention to how imputation uncertainty can be incorporated into the association analysis and subsequent meta-analysis. Probably the most important aspect of genome-wide association meta-analysis is harmonization of the study results. As studies differ in design, sample collection, genotyping platforms, and association analysis methods, it is important that the association results (per SNP) of each study can be formatted, exchanged, and analyzed in such a way that the statistical evidence can be combined appropriately and that no valuable information is lost. Without minimizing the importance of having a clear phenotype definition (and corresponding measurements), we will assume that investigators representing the various studies have made sensible agreements about phenotype definitions, necessary sample exclusions, and appropriate covariate modeling.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/pdb.top81

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There have been multiple meta-analysis consortia in psychiatric genetics, of which the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium is the largest and most encompassing.

    “there have been multiple meta-analysis 146,147 consortia in psychiatric genetics, of which the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (http://pgc.unc.edu) is the largest and most encompassing. 123,148,149”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Bakker, P. I. W., Neale, B. M., & Daly, M. J.
Venue
Cold Spring Harbor Protocols
Published
2010-06
Volume
2010
Issue
6
Pages
pdb.top81
ISSN
  • 1559-6095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-3402
OpenAlex
W2031957244
Cited by
48
References
73
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cold Spring Harbor Protocols (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
single nucleotide polymorphisms, imputation uncertainty, complex traits, common diseases, genetic susceptibility loci, genotype-phenotype correlation
MeSH terms
Genotype, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study

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