The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accounting for multiple comparisons in a genome-wide association study (GWAS)
Open accessAbstract
Background: As we enter an era when testing millions of SNPs in a single gene association study will become the standard, consideration of multiple comparisons is an essential part of determining statistical significance. Bonferroni adjustments can be made but are conservative due to the preponderance of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between genetic markers, and permutation testing is not always a viable option. Three major classes of corrections have been proposed to correct the dependent nature of genetic data in Bonferroni adjustments: permutation testing and related alternatives, principal components analysis (PCA), and analysis of blocks of LD across the genome. We consider seven implementations of these commonly used methods using data from 1514 European American participants genotyped for 700,078 SNPs in a GWAS for AIDS. Results: A Bonferroni correction using the number of LD blocks found by the three algorithms implemented by Haploview resulted in an insufficiently conservative threshold, corresponding to a genome-wide significance level of α = 0.15 - 0.20. We observed a moderate increase in power when using PRESTO, SLIDE, and simpleℳ when compared with traditional Bonferroni methods for population data genotyped on the Affymetrix 6.0 platform in European Americans (α = 0.05 thresholds between 1 × 10-7 and 7 × 10-8). Conclusions: Correcting for the number of LD blocks resulted in an anti-conservative Bonferroni adjustment. SLIDE and simpleℳ are particularly useful when using a statistical test not handled in optimized permutation testing packages, and genome-wide corrected p-values using SLIDE, are much easier to interpret for consumers of GWAS studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies
Price, A. L., Patterson, N. J., Plenge, R. M., Weinblatt, M. E., Shadick, N. A., & Reich, D. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1847 · Cited by 10,248
Statistical significance for genomewide studies
Storey, J. D., & Tibshirani, R. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1530509100 · Cited by 9,692
What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments
Perneger, T. V. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236 · Cited by 5,900
The Structure of Haplotype Blocks in the Human Genome
Gabriel, S. B., Schaffner, S. F., Nguyen, H., Moore, J. M., Roy, J., Blumenstiel, B., Higgins, J., DeFelice, M., Lochner, A., Faggart, M., et al. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1069424 · Cited by 5,863
A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs
The International HapMap Consortium (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06258 · Cited by 4,438
Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges
McCarthy, M. I., Abecasis, G. R., Cardon, L. R., Goldstein, D. B., Little, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Hirschhorn, J. N. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2344 · Cited by 2,891
A new multipoint method for genome-wide association studies by imputation of genotypes
Marchini, J., Howie, B., Myers, S., McVean, G., & Donnelly, P. (2007) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng2088 · Cited by 2,609
Hudson, R. R., & Kaplan, N. L. (1985) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/111.1.147 · Cited by 1,555
Skol, A. D., Scott, L. J., Abecasis, G. R., & Boehnke, M. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1706 · Cited by 1,286
A simple correction for multiple comparisons in interval mapping genome scans
Cheverud, J. M. (2001) · Heredity · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00901.x · Cited by 421
Cited by
Status and prospects of genome‐wide association studies in plants
Tibbs Cortes, L., Zhang, Z., & Yu, J. (2021) · The Plant Genome · doi:10.1002/tpg2.20077 · Cited by 470
Panagiotou, O. A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & for the Genome-Wide Significance Project (2012) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyr178 · Cited by 286
Review: a meta‐analysis of GWAS and age‐associated diseases
Jeck, W. R., Siebold, A. P., & Sharpless, N. E. (2012) · Aging Cell · doi:10.1111/j.1474-9726.2012.00871.x · Cited by 204
Population genomics of human adaptation
Lachance, J., & Tishkoff, S. A. (2013) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135833 · Cited by 95
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, R. C., Nelson, G. W., Troyer, J. L., Lautenberger, J. A., Kessing, B. D., Winkler, C. A., & O'Brien, S. J.
- Venue
- BMC Genomics
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 724-724
- ISSN
- 1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125439972
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 5.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Accounting for multiple comparisons in a genome-wide association study (GWAS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2164-11-724
- The paper
- Johnson, R. C., Nelson, G. W., Troyer, J. L., Lautenberger, J. A., Kessing, B. D., Winkler, C. A., & O'Brien, S. J. (2010). Accounting for multiple comparisons in a genome-wide association study (GWAS). BMC Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-724
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.