Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 491

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

Integrating Functional Data to Prioritize Causal Variants in Statistical Fine-Mapping Studies

Open access
Kichaev, Gleb, Yang, Wen-Yun, Lindstrom, Sara, Hormozdiari, Farhad, Eskin, Eleazar, Price, Alkes L., Kraft, Peter, Pasaniuc, Bogdan·2014·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

Standard statistical approaches for prioritization of variants for functional testing in fine-mapping studies either use marginal association statistics or estimate posterior probabilities for variants to be causal under simplifying assumptions. Here, we present a probabilistic framework that integrates association strength with functional genomic annotation data to improve accuracy in selecting plausible causal variants for functional validation. A key feature of our approach is that it empirically estimates the contribution of each functional annotation to the trait of interest directly from summary association statistics while allowing for multiple causal variants at any risk locus. We devise efficient algorithms that estimate the parameters of our model across all risk loci to further increase performance. Using simulations starting from the 1000 Genomes data, we find that our framework consistently outperforms the current state-of-the-art fine-mapping methods, reducing the number of variants that need to be selected to capture 90% of the causal variants from an average of 13.3 to 10.4 SNPs per locus (as compared to the next-best performing strategy). Furthermore, we introduce a cost-to-benefit optimization framework for determining the number of variants to be followed up in functional assays and assess its performance using real and simulation data. We validate our findings using a large scale meta-analysis of four blood lipids traits and find that the relative probability for causality is increased for variants in exons and transcription start sites and decreased in repressed genomic regions at the risk loci of these traits. Using these highly predictive, trait-specific functional annotations, we estimate causality probabilities across all traits and variants, reducing the size of the 90% confidence set from an average of 17.5 to 13.5 variants per locus in this data.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004722

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 491

Metadata

Authors
Kichaev, G., Yang, W.-Y., Lindstrom, S., Hormozdiari, F., Eskin, E., Price, A. L., Kraft, P., & Pasaniuc, B.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2014-10-30
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e1004722
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2101505979
Cited by
491
References
11
FWCI
20.61
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: Integrating Functional Data to Prioritize Causal Variants in Statistical Fine-Mapping Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004722
The paper
Kichaev, G., Yang, W.-Y., Lindstrom, S., Hormozdiari, F., Eskin, E., Price, A. L., Kraft, P., & Pasaniuc, B. (2014). Integrating Functional Data to Prioritize Causal Variants in Statistical Fine-Mapping Studies. PLoS Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004722

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.