Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26909100›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2016

Estimating Effect Sizes and Expected Replication Probabilities from GWAS Summary Statistics.

Dominic Holland, Yunpeng Wang, Wesley K Thompson, Andrew Schork, Chi-Hua Chen, Min-Tzu Lo, Aree Witoelar, Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta Analysis Consortium, Thomas Werge and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of the Associations Between the Human Fecal Microbiome and Bone Density, Structure, and Strength: The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Cohort.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Dominic HollandMultimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Neurosciences, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Yunpeng WangMultimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Neurosciences, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; NORMENT, KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of OsloOslo, Norway; Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University HospitalOslo, Norway.
Wesley K ThompsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Andrew SchorkMultimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Chi-Hua ChenMultimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Radiology, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Min-Tzu LoMultimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Radiology, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Aree WitoelarNORMENT, KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of OsloOslo, Norway; Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University HospitalOslo, Norway.
Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium
Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta Analysis Consortium
Thomas WergeInstitute of Biological Psychiatry, MHC, Sct. Hans Hospital and University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael O'DonovanMRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University Cardiff, UK.
Ole A AndreassenNORMENT, KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of OsloOslo, Norway; Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University HospitalOslo, Norway.
Anders M DaleMultimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Neurosciences, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Radiology, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

5/7 Psychiatric Genomics Consortium: Finding actionable variationU01MH109514 · NIMH · CARDIFF UNIVERSITY · PI O'DONOVAN, MICHAEL · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Identifying the Polygenic Basis of the Human Brain and Psychiatric DisordersR01MH100351 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI CHEN, CHI-HUA · 2013 to 2017
$2.1M
Polygenicity, Pleiotrophy and Power: Novel Statistical Methods for Gene DiscoveryR01GM104400 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI THOMPSON, WESLEY KURT · 2014 to 2017
$1.6M
Medical Research Council G0800509Medical Research Council MR/L010305/1NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM104400NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100351NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH109514
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS) result in millions of summary statistics ("z-scores") for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations with phenotypes. These rich datasets afford deep insights into the nature and extent of genetic contributions to complex phenotypes such as psychiatric disorders, which are understood to have substantial genetic components that arise from very large numbers of SNPs. The complexity of the datasets, however, poses a significant challenge to maximizing their utility. This is reflected in a need for better understanding the landscape of z-scores, as such knowledge would enhance causal SNP and gene discovery, help elucidate mechanistic pathways, and inform future study design. Here we present a parsimonious methodology for modeling effect sizes and replication probabilities, relying only on summary statistics from GWAS substudies, and a scheme allowing for direct empirical validation. We show that modeling z-scores as a mixture of Gaussians is conceptually appropriate, in particular taking into account ubiquitous non-null effects that are likely in the datasets due to weak linkage disequilibrium with causal SNPs. The four-parameter model allows for estimating the degree of polygenicity of the phenotype and predicting the proportion of chip heritability explainable by genome-wide significant SNPs in future studies with larger sample sizes. We apply the model to recent GWAS of schizophrenia (N = 82,315) and putamen volume (N = 12,596), with approximately 9.3 million SNP z-scores in both cases. We show that, over a broad range of z-scores and sample sizes, the model accurately predicts expectation estimates of true effect sizes and replication probabilities in multistage GWAS designs. We assess the degree to which effect sizes are over-estimated when based on linear-regression association coefficients. We estimate the polygenicity of schizophrenia to be 0.037 and the putamen to be 0.001, while the respective sample sizes required to approach fully explaining the chip heritability are 10(6) and 10(5). The model can be extended to incorporate prior knowledge such as pleiotropy and SNP annotation. The current findings suggest that the model is applicable to a broad array of complex phenotypes and will enhance understanding of their genetic architectures.

Indexed as

effect sizeGaussian mixture modelGWASheritabilityputamenschizophreniaSNP discovery

Identifiers

PMID26909100
PMCPMC4754432

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.