Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26849113›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2016

Disease and Polygenic Architecture: Avoid Trio Design and Appropriately Account for Unscreened Control Subjects for Common Disease.

Wouter J Peyrot, Dorret I Boomsma, Brenda W J H Penninx, Naomi R Wray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Genetic architectures of brain-related traits are shaped by strong selective constraints.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Polygenic and developmental profiles of autism differ by age at diagnosis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Wouter J PeyrotDepartment of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Center & GGZ inGeest, Amsterdam 1081 HL, the Netherlands; Queensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia. Electronic address: w.peyrot@ggzingeest.nl.
Dorret I BoomsmaDepartment of Biological Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 BT, the Netherlands.
Brenda W J H PenninxDepartment of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Center & GGZ inGeest, Amsterdam 1081 HL, the Netherlands.
Naomi R WrayQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia. Electronic address: naomi.wray@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) are an optimal design for discovery of disease risk loci for diseases whose underlying genetic architecture includes many common causal loci of small effect (a polygenic architecture). We consider two designs that deserve careful consideration if the true underlying genetic architecture of the trait is polygenic: parent-offspring trios and unscreened control subjects. We assess these designs in terms of quantification of the total contribution of genome-wide genetic markers to disease risk (SNP heritability) and power to detect an associated risk allele. First, we show that trio designs should be avoided when: (1) the disease has a lifetime risk > 1%; (2) trio probands are ascertained from families with more than one affected sibling under which scenario the SNP heritability can drop by more than 50% and power can drop as much as from 0.9 to 0.15 for a sample of 20,000 subjects; or (3) assortative mating occurs (spouse correlation of the underlying liability to the disorder), which decreases the SNP heritability but not the power to detect a single locus in the trio design. Some studies use unscreened rather than screened control subjects because these can be easier to collect; we show that the estimated SNP heritability should then be scaled by dividing by (1 - K × u)(2) for disorders with population prevalence K and proportion of unscreened control subjects u. When omitting to scale appropriately, the SNP heritability of, for example, major depressive disorder (K = 0.15) would be underestimated by 28% when none of the control subjects are screened.

Indexed as

AllelesGene FrequencyGenetic Association StudiesGenetic LociGenetic MarkersGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseMajor Depressive DisorderPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait, HeritableGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID26849113
PMCPMC4746372

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.