Cited by 429Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Fine-mapping from summary data with the “Sum of Single Effects” model

Open access
Zou, Yuxin, Carbonetto, Peter, Wang, Gao, Stephens, Matthew·2022·PLOS Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In recent work, Wang et al introduced the “Sum of Single Effects” ( SuSiE ) model, and showed that it provides a simple and efficient approach to fine-mapping genetic variants from individual-level data. Here we present new methods for fitting the SuSiE model to summary data, for example to single-SNP z -scores from an association study and linkage disequilibrium (LD) values estimated from a suitable reference panel. To develop these new methods, we first describe a simple, generic strategy for extending any individual-level data method to deal with summary data. The key idea is to replace the usual regression likelihood with an analogous likelihood based on summary data. We show that existing fine-mapping methods such as FINEMAP and CAVIAR also (implicitly) use this strategy, but in different ways, and so this provides a common framework for understanding different methods for fine-mapping. We investigate other common practical issues in fine-mapping with summary data, including problems caused by inconsistencies between the z -scores and LD estimates, and we develop diagnostics to identify these inconsistencies. We also present a new refinement procedure that improves model fits in some data sets, and hence improves overall reliability of the SuSiE fine-mapping results. Detailed evaluations of fine-mapping methods in a range of simulated data sets show that SuSiE applied to summary data is competitive, in both speed and accuracy, with the best available fine-mapping methods for summary data.

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.1010299

Cites

0 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?

  • LD consistency between discovery and reference samples in the EAS population was high; s values from SuSiE-RSS ranged from 0.007 to 0.027 across fine-mapped loci.

    “The s values from SuSiE-RSS ranged from 0.007 to 0.027 across fine-mapped loci, and the diagnostic plots demonstrated high consistency of LD between the summary statistics and reference panel (Supplementary Fig. 19a–g).”

    From Shared genetic architectures of educational attainment in East Asian and European populations (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Description of the method section explains how SuSiE-RSS assesses consistency between summary statistics and a reference-panel LD matrix, including diagnostic plots. But our copy does not report EAS fine-mapped loci, s values of 0.007–0.027, or the claimed high LD consistency for those samples; those specific results are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. [1]Hutchinson A, Asimit J, Wallace C. Fine-mapping genetic associations. Human Molecular Genetics. 2020; 29(R1): R81– R88. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddaa148 32744321 PMC7733401 · DOI
  2. [2]Maller JB, McVean G, Byrnes J, Vukcevic D, Palin K, Su Z, et al. Bayesian refinement of association signals for 14 loci in 3 common diseases. Nature Genetics. 2012; 44(12): 1294– 1301. doi: 10.1038/ng.2435 23104008 PMC3791416 · DOI
  3. [3]Kote-Jarai Z, Saunders EJ, Leongamornlert DA, Tymrakiewicz M, Dadaev T, Jugurnauth-Little S, et al. Fine-mapping identifies multiple prostate cancer risk loci at 5p15, one of which associates with TERT expression. Human Molecular Genetics. 2013; 22(12): 2520– 2528. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddt086 23535824 PMC3658165 · DOI
  4. [4]Schaid DJ, Chen W, Larson NB. From genome-wide associations to candidate causal variants by statistical fine-mapping. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2018; 19(8): 491– 504. doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0016-z 29844615 PMC6050137 · DOI
  5. [5]Spain SL, Barrett JC. Strategies for fine-mapping complex traits. Human Molecular Genetics. 2015; 24(R1): R111– R119. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddv260 26157023 PMC4572002 · DOI
  6. [6]Visscher PM, Wray NR, Zhang Q, Sklar P, McCarthy MI, Brown MA, et al. 10 years of GWAS discovery: biology, function, and translation. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017; 101(1): 5– 22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.005 28686856 PMC5501872 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [7]Hormozdiari F, Kostem E, Kang EY, Pasaniuc B, Eskin E. Identifying causal variants at loci with multiple signals of association. Genetics. 2014; 198(2): 497– 508. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.167908 25104515 PMC4196608 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [8]Kichaev G, Yang WY, Lindstrom S, Hormozdiari F, Eskin E, Price AL, et al. Integrating functional data to prioritize causal variants in statistical fine-mapping studies. PLoS Genetics. 2014; 10(10): e1004722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004722 25357204 PMC4214605 · DOI
  9. [9]Servin B, Stephens M. Imputation-based analysis of association studies: candidate regions and quantitative traits. PLoS Genetics. 2007; 3(7): e114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030114 17676998 PMC1934390 · DOI
  10. [11]Chen W, Larrabee BR, Ovsyannikova IG, Kennedy RB, Haralambieva IH, Poland GA, et al. Fine mapping causal variants with an approximate Bayesian method using marginal test statistics. Genetics. 2015; 200(3): 719– 736. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.176107 25948564 PMC4512539 · DOI
  11. [12]Benner C, Spencer CCA, Havulinna AS, Salomaa V, Ripatti S, Pirinen M. FINEMAP: efficient variable selection using summary data from genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32(10): 1493– 1501. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw018 26773131 PMC4866522 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13]Li Y, Kellis M. Joint Bayesian inference of risk variants and tissue-specific epigenomic enrichments across multiple complex human diseases. Nucleic Acids Research. 2016; 44(18): e144. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw627 27407109 PMC5062982 · DOI
  13. [14]Wen X, Lee Y, Luca F, Pique-Regi R. Efficient integrative multi-SNP association analysis via deterministic approximation of posteriors. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2016; 98(6): 1114– 1129. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.03.029 27236919 PMC4908152 · DOI
  14. [15]Newcombe PJ, Conti DV, Richardson S. JAM: a scalable Bayesian framework for joint analysis of marginal SNP effects. Genetic Epidemiology. 2016; 40(3): 188– 201. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21953 27027514 PMC4817278 · DOI
  15. [16]Lee Y, Luca F, Pique-Regi R, Wen X. Bayesian multi-SNP genetic association analysis: control of FDR and use of summary statistics. bioRxiv. 2018. doi: 10.1101/316471 · DOI
  16. [17]Wang G, Sarkar A, Carbonetto P, Stephens M. A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 2020; 82(5): 1273– 1300. doi: 10.1111/rssb.12388 PMC10201948 37220626 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [18]Sesia M, Katsevich E, Bates S, Candès E, Sabatti C. Multi-resolution localization of causal variants across the genome. Nature Communications. 2020; 11: 1093. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14791-2 32107378 PMC7046731 · DOI
  18. [19]Wallace C, Cutler AJ, Pontikos N, Pekalski ML, Burren OS, Cooper JD, et al. Dissection of a complex disease susceptibility region using a Bayesian stochastic search approach to fine mapping. PLoS Genetics. 2015; 11(6): e1005272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005272 26106896 PMC4481316 · DOI
  19. [20]Hutchinson A, Watson H, Wallace C. Improving the coverage of credible sets in Bayesian genetic fine-mapping. PLoS Computational Biology. 2020; 16(4): e1007829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007829 32282791 PMC7179948 · DOI
  20. [21]Benner C, Havulinna AS, Salomaa V, Ripatti S, Pirinen M. Refining fine-mapping: effect sizes and regional heritability. bioRxiv. 2018. doi: 10.1101/318618 PMC11753704 39787248 · DOI
  21. [22]Pasaniuc B, Price AL. Dissecting the genetics of complex traits using summary association statistics. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2017; 18(2): 117– 127. doi: 10.1038/nrg.2016.142 27840428 PMC5449190 · DOI
  22. [23]Zhu X, Stephens M. Bayesian large-scale multiple regression with summary statistics from genome-wide association studies. Annals of Applied Statistics. 2017; 11(3): 1561– 1592. doi: 10.1214/17-aoas1046 29399241 PMC5796536 · DOI
  23. [24]Kanai M, Elzur R, Zhou W, analysis Initiative GBM, Daly MJ, Finucane HK. Meta-analysis fine-mapping is often miscalibrated at single-variant resolution. medRxiv. 2022. doi: 10.1101/2022.03.16.22272457 PMC9839193 36643910 · DOI
  24. [25]Chipman H, George EI, McCulloch RE. The practical implementation of Bayesian model selection. In: Model Selection. vol. 38 of IMS Lecture Notes. Institute of Mathematical Statistics; 2001. p. 65–116.
  25. [26]Veyrieras JB, Kudaravalli S, Kim SY, Dermitzakis ET, Gilad Y, Stephens M, et al. High-resolution mapping of expression-QTLs yields insight into human gene regulation. PLoS Genetics. 2008; 4(10): e1000214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000214 18846210 PMC2556086 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [27]Pickrell JK. Joint analysis of functional genomic data and genome-wide association studies of 18 human traits. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2014; 94(4): 559– 573. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.03.004 24702953 PMC3980523 · DOI
  27. [30]Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience. 2015; 4(1): s13742–015– 0047–8. doi: 10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8 PMC4342193 25722852 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [31]Benner C, Havulinna AS, Järvelin MR, Salomaa V, Ripatti S, Pirinen M. Prospects of fine-mapping trait-associated genomic regions by using summary statistics from genome-wide association studies. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017; 101(4): 539– 551. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.08.012 28942963 PMC5630179 · DOI
  29. [32]Stephens M, Balding DJ. Bayesian statistical methods for genetic association studies. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2009; 10(10): 681– 690. doi: 10.1038/nrg2615 19763151 · DOI
  30. [33]Wakefield J. Bayes factors for genome-wide association studies: comparison with P-values. Genetic Epidemiology. 2009; 33(1): 79– 86. doi: 10.1002/gepi.20359 18642345 · DOI
  31. [34]Zou Y, Carbonetto P, Wang G, Stephens M. Fine-mapping from summary data with the “Sum of Single Effects” model. bioRxiv. 2021. PMC9337707 35853082
  32. [35]Lozano JA, Hormozdiari F, Joo JWJ, Han B, Eskin E. The multivariate normal distribution framework for analyzing association studies. bioRxiv. 2017. doi: 10.1101/208199 · DOI
  33. [36]Park Y, Sarkar AK, He L, Davila-Velderrain J, De Jager PL, Kellis M. A Bayesian approach to mediation analysis predicts 206 causal target genes in Alzheimer’s disease. bioRxiv. 2017. doi: 10.1101/219428 · DOI
  34. [37]Mak TSH, Porsch RM, Choi SW, Zhou X, Sham PC. Polygenic scores via penalized regression on summary statistics. Genetic Epidemiology. 2017; 41(6): 469– 480. doi: 10.1002/gepi.22050 28480976 · DOI
  35. [39]Pasaniuc B, Zaitlen N, Shi H, Bhatia G, Gusev A, Pickrell J, et al. Fast and accurate imputation of summary statistics enhances evidence of functional enrichment. Bioinformatics. 2014; 30(20): 2906– 2914. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu416 24990607 PMC4184260 · DOI
  36. [40]Chen W, Wu Y, Zheng Z, Qi T, Visscher PM, Zhu Z, et al. Improved analyses of GWAS summary statistics by reducing data heterogeneity and errors. Nature Communications. 2021; 12: 7117. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27438-7 34880243 PMC8654883 · DOI
  37. [41]Lee D, Bigdeli TB, Riley BP, Fanous AH, Bacanu SA. DIST: direct imputation of summary statistics for unmeasured SNPs. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(22): 2925– 2927. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt500 23990413 PMC3810851 · DOI
  38. [42]LaPierre N, Taraszka K, Huang H, He R, Hormozdiari F, Eskin E. Identifying causal variants by fine mapping across multiple studies. bioRxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.01.15.908517 PMC8491908 34543273 · DOI
  39. [43]Bycroft C, Freeman C, Petkova D, Band G, Elliott LT, Sharp K, et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature. 2018; 562(7726): 203– 209. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0579-z 30305743 PMC6786975 · DOI · Paper page
  40. [44]Guan Y, Stephens M. Bayesian variable selection regression for genome-wide association studies and other large-scale problems. Annals of Applied Statistics. 2011; 5(3): 1780– 1815. doi: 10.1214/11-AOAS455 · DOI
  41. [45]Bodmer W, Bonilla C. Common and rare variants in multifactorial susceptibility to common diseases. Nature Genetics. 2008; 40(6): 695– 701. doi: 10.1038/ng.f.136 18509313 PMC2527050 · DOI · Paper page
  42. [46]Ioannidis JPA, Trikalinos TA, Khoury MJ. Implications of small effect sizes of individual genetic variants on the design and interpretation of genetic association studies of complex diseases. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2006; 164(7): 609– 614. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj259 16893921 · DOI
  43. [47]Barbeira AN, Bonazzola R, Gamazon ER, Liang Y, Park Y, Kim-Hellmuth S, et al. Exploiting the GTEx resources to decipher the mechanisms at GWAS loci. Genome Biology. 2021; 22: 49. doi: 10.1186/s13059-020-02252-4 33499903 PMC7836161 · DOI
  44. [48]The GTEx Consortium. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science. 2015; 348(6235): 648– 660. doi: 10.1126/science.1262110 25954001 PMC4547484 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [49]Wen X, Luca F, Pique-Regi R. Cross-population joint analysis of eQTLs: fine mapping and functional annotation. PLoS Genetics. 2015; 11(4): e1005176. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005176 25906321 PMC4408026 · DOI
  46. [50]Zhu Z, Zhang F, Hu H, Bakshi A, Robinson MR, Powell JE, et al. Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nature Genetics. 2016; 48(5): 481– 487. doi: 10.1038/ng.3538 27019110 · DOI · Paper page
  47. [51]Han B, Kang HM, Eskin E. Rapid and accurate multiple testing correction and power estimation for millions of correlated markers. PLoS Genetics. 2009; 5(4): e1000456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000456 19381255 PMC2663787 · DOI
  48. [52]Pirinen M, Donnelly P, Spencer CCA. Efficient computation with a linear mixed model on large-scale data sets with applications to genetic studies. Annals of Applied Statistics. 2013; 7(1): 369– 390. doi: 10.1214/12-AOAS586 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zou, Y., Carbonetto, P., Wang, G., & Stephens, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Stephens, Matthew
Venue
PLOS Genetics
Published
2022-07-19
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
e1010299
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W4286218496
Cited by
429
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 134 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 1
FWCI
45.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Knowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Chicago (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG002585)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (U01AG072572)
  • Thompson Family Foundation Initative (TAME-AD)
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
fine mapping, summary data, linkage disequilibrium, caviar, model fitting, model refinement, genetic association studies
MeSH terms
Models, Genetic, Reproducibility of Results, Linkage Disequilibrium, Likelihood Functions, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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