ArticleGenetics2017
Testing Genetic Pleiotropy with GWAS Summary Statistics for Marginal and Conditional Analyses.
Article in Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of sample-level dbGaP data reveals novel shared genetic link between body height and Crohn's disease.Human genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Co-expression-wide association studies link genetically regulated interactions with complex traits.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The goldmine of GWAS summary statistics: a systematic review of methods and tools.BioData mining · 2024Article
- Mapping pleiotropic loci using a fast-sequential testing algorithm.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Implicating causal brain imaging endophenotypes in Alzheimer's disease using multivariable IWAS and GWAS summary data.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- A powerful and versatile colocalization test.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Multi-trait Improvement by Predicting Genetic Correlations in Breeding Crosses.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2019Article
- Significance Testing for Allelic Heterogeneity.Genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is growing interest in testing genetic pleiotropy, which is when a single genetic variant influences multiple traits. Several methods have been proposed; however, these methods have some limitations. First, all the proposed methods are based on the use of individual-level genotype and phenotype data; in contrast, for logistical, and other, reasons, summary statistics of univariate SNP-trait associations are typically only available based on meta- or mega-analyzed large genome-wide association study (GWAS) data. Second, existing tests are based on marginal pleiotropy, which cannot distinguish between direct and indirect associations of a single genetic variant with multiple traits due to correlations among the traits. Hence, it is useful to consider conditional analysis, in which a subset of traits is adjusted for another subset of traits. For example, in spite of substantial lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) with statin therapy, some patients still maintain high residual cardiovascular risk, and, for these patients, it might be helpful to reduce their triglyceride (TG) level. For this purpose, in order to identify new therapeutic targets, it would be useful to identify genetic variants with pleiotropic effects on LDL and TG after adjusting the latter for LDL; otherwise, a pleiotropic effect of a genetic variant detected by a marginal model could simply be due to its association with LDL only, given the well-known correlation between the two types of lipids. Here, we develop a new pleiotropy testing procedure based only on GWAS summary statistics that can be applied for both marginal analysis and conditional analysis. Although the main technical development is based on published union-intersection testing methods, care is needed in specifying conditional models to avoid invalid statistical estimation and inference. In addition to the previously used likelihood ratio test, we also propose using generalized estimating equations under the working independence model for robust inference. We provide numerical examples based on both simulated and real data, including two large lipid GWAS summary association datasets based on ∼100,000 and ∼189,000 samples, respectively, to demonstrate the difference between marginal and conditional analyses, as well as the effectiveness of our new approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.