ArticleGenetic epidemiology2020
Some statistical consideration in transcriptome-wide association studies.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Multivariate proteome-wide association study to identify causal proteins for Alzheimer disease.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Leveraging multimodal neuroimaging and GWAS for identifying modality-level causal pathways to Alzheimer's disease.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Inferring causal direction between two traits using RAmerican journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- SUMMIT-FA: a new resource for improved transcriptome imputation using functional annotations.Human molecular genetics · 2024Article
- On the interpretation of transcriptome-wide association studies.PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- Two-stage multivariate Mendelian randomization on multiple outcomes with mixed distributions.Statistical methods in medical research · 2023Article
- OTTERS: a powerful TWAS framework leveraging summary-level reference data.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Statistical power of transcriptome-wide association studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2022Article
- SUMMIT: An integrative approach for better transcriptomic data imputation improves causal gene identification.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Integrative eQTL-weighted hierarchical Cox models for SNP-set based time-to-event association studies.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Model checking via testing for direct effects in Mendelian Randomization and transcriptome-wide association studies.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Leveraging Methylation Alterations to Discover Potential Causal Genes Associated With the Survival Risk of Cervical Cancer in TCGA Through a Two-Stage Inference Approach.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Detection of Genetic Overlap Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Using GWAS Summary Statistics.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Implicating causal brain imaging endophenotypes in Alzheimer's disease using multivariable IWAS and GWAS summary data.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- A powerful fine-mapping method for transcriptome-wide association studies.Human genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.