Cited by 52Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Incorporating Functional Annotations for Fine-Mapping Causal Variants in a Bayesian Framework Using Summary Statistics

Open access
Chen, Wenan, McDonnell, Shannon K, Thibodeau, Stephen N, Tillmans, Lori S, Schaid, Daniel J·2016·Genetics

Abstract

Functional annotations have been shown to improve both the discovery power and fine-mapping accuracy in genome-wide association studies. However, the optimal strategy to incorporate the large number of existing annotations is still not clear. In this study, we propose a Bayesian framework to incorporate functional annotations in a systematic manner. We compute the maximum a posteriori solution and use cross validation to find the optimal penalty parameters. By extending our previous fine-mapping method CAVIARBF into this framework, we require only summary statistics as input. We also derived an exact calculation of Bayes factors using summary statistics for quantitative traits, which is necessary when a large proportion of trait variance is explained by the variants of interest, such as in fine mapping expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL). We compared the proposed method with PAINTOR using different strategies to combine annotations. Simulation results show that the proposed method achieves the best accuracy in identifying causal variants among the different strategies and methods compared. We also find that for annotations with moderate effects from a large annotation pool, screening annotations individually and then combining the top annotations can produce overly optimistic results. We applied these methods on two real data sets: a meta-analysis result of lipid traits and a cis-eQTL study of normal prostate tissues. For the eQTL data, incorporating annotations signifi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1534/genetics.116.188953

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, W., McDonnell, S. K., Thibodeau, S. N., Tillmans, L. S., & Schaid, D. J.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Schaid, Daniel J
Venue
Genetics
Published
2016-11-01
Volume
204
Issue
3
Pages
933-958
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2522774247
Cited by
52
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA151254)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM065450)
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, functional annotation, Bayesian framework, summary statistics, Bayes factor, expression quantitative trait loci, cis-eQTL, lipid traits, prostate tissue, causal variant identification
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Contig Mapping, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genome-Wide Association Study, Molecular Sequence Annotation

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