Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31821608›Full record

ArticleGenetic epidemiology2020

Some statistical consideration in transcriptome-wide association studies.

Haoran Xue, Wei Pan, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Inferring causal direction between two traits using RAmerican journal of human genetics · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Haoran XueSchool of Statistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Wei PanDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-1159-0582
Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

Association analysis of rare variants with sequencing dataR01HL116720 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI, WEI, PENG · 2013 to 2020
$3.3M
Estimation and inference in directed acyclic graphical models for biological networksR01AG074858 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Wei Pan, XIAOTONG Tom SHEN · 2022 to 2026
$3.2M
Powerful Inference and Prediction for Genetic AssociationR01HL105397 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI, SHEN, XIAOTONG TOM · 2011 to 2018
$2.9M
Estimation and Inference of Gene Regulatory NetworksR01GM126002 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI, SHEN, XIAOTONG TOM · 2017 to 2020
$1.4M
Statistical Methods for Genomic DataR01GM113250 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI · 2014 to 2017
$702k
Integrating genomic and imaging endophenotypes in GWASR21AG057038 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI · 2017 to 2018
$405k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL105397NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL116720NIA NIH HHS R01 AG074858NIA NIH HHS R21 AG057038NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM113250NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM126002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The methodology of transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) has become popular in integrating a reference expression quantitative trait (eQTL) data set with an independent main GWAS data set to identify (putatively) causal genes, shedding mechanistic insights to biological pathways from genetic variants to a GWAS trait mediated by gene expression. Statistically TWAS is a (two-sample) 2-stage least squares (2SLS) method in the framework of instrumental variables analysis for causal inference: in Stage 1 it uses the reference eQTL data to impute a genes expression for the main GWAS data, then in Stage 2 it tests for association between the imputed gene expression and the GWAS trait; if an association is detected in Stage 2, a (putatively) causal relationship between the gene and the GWAS trait is claimed. If a nonlinear model or a generalized linear model (GLM) is fitted in Stage 2 (e.g., for a binary GWAS trait), it is known that using only imputed gene expression, as in standard TWAS, in general does not lead to a consistent (i.e., asymptotically unbiased) estimate for the causal effect; accordingly, a variation of 2SLS, called two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI), has been proposed to yield better estimates (e.g., being consistent under suitable conditions). Our main goal is to investigate whether it is necessary or even better to apply 2SRI, instead of the standard 2SLS. In addition, due to the use of imputed gene expression (i.e., with measurement errors), it is known that in general some correction to the standard error estimate of the causal effect estimate has to be applied, while in the standard TWAS no correction is applied. Is this an issue? We also compare one-sample 2SLS with two-sample 2SLS (i.e., the standard TWAS). We used the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data and simulated data mimicking the ADNI data to address the above questions. At the end, we conclude that, in practice with the large sample sizes and small effect sizes of genetic variants, the standard TWAS performs well and is recommended.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyStatistics as TopicAlzheimer DiseaseBiasComputer SimulationHumansModels, GeneticNeuroimagingTranscriptome2SLS2SPS2SRIcausal inferenceinstrumental variablesMendelian randomizationTWAS

Identifiers

PMID31821608
PMCPMC7064426
OpenAlexW2996479126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.