Incorporating Functional Annotations for Fine-Mapping Causal Variants in a Bayesian Framework Using Summary Statistics
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Among SNPs within 50 kb of lead SNPs, 127 are identified by CAVIARBF as likely causal SNPs (posterior probability > 0.9).
“Among SNPs within 50 kb of lead SNPs, 127 of them are identified by the fine-mapping tool CAVIARBF23 as likely causal SNPs (posterior probability > 0.9) (Supplementary Table 10).”
From Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
Systematic Localization of Common Disease-Associated Variation in Regulatory DNA
Maurano, M. T., Humbert, R., Rynes, E., Thurman, R. E., Haugen, E., Wang, H., Reynolds, A. P., Sandstrom, R., Qu, H., Brody, J., et al. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1222794 · Cited by 3,716 · see citing works
Biological, clinical and population relevance of 95 loci for blood lipids
Teslovich, T. M., Musunuru, K., Smith, A. V., Edmondson, A. C., Stylianou, I. M., Koseki, M., Pirruccello, J. P., Ripatti, S., Chasman, D. I., Willer, C. J., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09270 · Cited by 3,487 · see citing works
Partitioning Heritability of Regulatory and Cell-Type-Specific Variants across 11 Common Diseases
Gusev, A., Lee, S. H., Trynka, G., Finucane, H., Vilhjálmsson, B. J., Xu, H., Zang, C., Ripke, S., Bulik-Sullivan, B., Stahl, E., et al. (2014) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.10.004 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
23andMe Research Team, Lee, J. J., COGENT (Cognitive Genomics Consortium), Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, Wedow, R., Okbay, A., Kong, E., Maghzian, O., Zacher, M., Nguyen-Viet, T. A., et al. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 · Cited by 2,470 · see citing works
The distribution of common-variant effect sizes
O’Connor, L. J. (2021) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00901-3 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-11-01
- Volume
- 204
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 933-958
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- PMC
- PMC5105870
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- 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