Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26699465›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016

Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem.

Siddharth Krishna Kumar, Marcus W Feldman, David H Rehkopf, Shripad Tuljapurkar

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Interpreting SNP heritability in admixed populations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Genetic characterization of cashmere goat (Frontiers in genetics · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Statistical Methods for Assessing the Explained Variation of a Health Outcome by a Mixture of Exposures.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Siddharth Krishna KumarDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020; sidkk86@stanford.edu.
Marcus W FeldmanDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020;
David H RehkopfSchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020.
Shripad TuljapurkarDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020;

Funding

THE MATHEMATICAL DEMOGRAPHY OF BIODEMOGRAPHYP01AG022500 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI CAREY, JAMES R. · 2003 to 2010
$8.1M
Life course contexts and work - quantifying impacts on aging and chronic diseaseK01AG047280 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI REHKOPF, DAVID H · 2014 to 2018
$632k
NIA NIH HHS AG22500NIA NIH HHS K01 AG047280NIA NIH HHS K01AG047280NIA NIH HHS P01 AG022500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) seek to understand the relationship between complex phenotype(s) (e.g., height) and up to millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Early analyses of GWASs are commonly believed to have "missed" much of the additive genetic variance estimated from correlations between relatives. A more recent method, genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA), obtains much higher estimates of heritability using a model of random SNP effects correlated between genotypically similar individuals. GCTA has now been applied to many phenotypes from schizophrenia to scholastic achievement. However, recent studies question GCTA's estimates of heritability. Here, we show that GCTA applied to current SNP data cannot produce reliable or stable estimates of heritability. We show first that GCTA depends sensitively on all singular values of a high-dimensional genetic relatedness matrix (GRM). When the assumptions in GCTA are satisfied exactly, we show that the heritability estimates produced by GCTA will be biased and the standard errors will likely be inaccurate. When the population is stratified, we find that GRMs typically have highly skewed singular values, and we prove that the many small singular values cannot be estimated reliably. Hence, GWAS data are necessarily overfit by GCTA which, as a result, produces high estimates of heritability. We also show that GCTA's heritability estimates are sensitive to the chosen sample and to measurement errors in the phenotype. We illustrate our results using the Framingham dataset. Our analysis suggests that results obtained using GCTA, and the results' qualitative interpretations, should be interpreted with great caution.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait, HeritableData Interpretation, StatisticalDatasets as TopicGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansPhenotypeGCTAGWASheritabilitysingular value decompositionSNP

Identifiers

PMID26699465
PMCPMC4711841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.