Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19492015›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2009

Designing genome-wide association studies: sample size, power, imputation, and the choice of genotyping chip.

Chris C A Spencer, Zhan Su, Peter Donnelly, Jonathan Marchini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 302 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
302citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

302 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Frontiers in genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Imputing Phenotypes for Genome-wide Association Studies.American journal of human genetics · 2016
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. TheGenes · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genetic Associations with Pectus Excavatum: A Systematic Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

242 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chris C A SpencerDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Zhan Su
Peter Donnelly
Jonathan Marchini

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies are revolutionizing the search for the genes underlying human complex diseases. The main decisions to be made at the design stage of these studies are the choice of the commercial genotyping chip to be used and the numbers of case and control samples to be genotyped. The most common method of comparing different chips is using a measure of coverage, but this fails to properly account for the effects of sample size, the genetic model of the disease, and linkage disequilibrium between SNPs. In this paper, we argue that the statistical power to detect a causative variant should be the major criterion in study design. Because of the complicated pattern of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the human genome, power cannot be calculated analytically and must instead be assessed by simulation. We describe in detail a method of simulating case-control samples at a set of linked SNPs that replicates the patterns of LD in human populations, and we used it to assess power for a comprehensive set of available genotyping chips. Our results allow us to compare the performance of the chips to detect variants with different effect sizes and allele frequencies, look at how power changes with sample size in different populations or when using multi-marker tags and genotype imputation approaches, and how performance compares to a hypothetical chip that contains every SNP in HapMap. A main conclusion of this study is that marked differences in genome coverage may not translate into appreciable differences in power and that, when taking budgetary considerations into account, the most powerful design may not always correspond to the chip with the highest coverage. We also show that genotype imputation can be used to boost the power of many chips up to the level obtained from a hypothetical "complete" chip containing all the SNPs in HapMap. Our results have been encapsulated into an R software package that allows users to design future association studies and our methods provide a framework with which new chip sets can be evaluated.

Indexed as

GenotypeGenome, HumanGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansLinkage DisequilibriumPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSample SizeSoftware

Identifiers

PMID19492015
PMCPMC2688469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.