Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33635859›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2021

Power analysis of transcriptome-wide association study: Implications for practical protocol choice.

Chen Cao, Bowei Ding, Qing Li, Devin Kwok, Jingjing Wu, Quan Long

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Connecting intermediate phenotypes to disease using multi-omics in heart failure.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Connecting intermediate phenotypes to disease using multi-omics in heart failure.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Chen CaoDepartment of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Bowei DingDepartment of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1678-3209
Qing LiDepartment of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Devin KwokDepartment of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2658-6305
Jingjing WuDepartment of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4555-1490
Quan LongDepartment of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3795-1873

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) has emerged as one of several promising techniques for integrating multi-scale 'omics' data into traditional genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Unlike GWAS, which associates phenotypic variance directly with genetic variants, TWAS uses a reference dataset to train a predictive model for gene expressions, which allows it to associate phenotype with variants through the mediating effect of expressions. Although effective, this core innovation of TWAS is poorly understood, since the predictive accuracy of the genotype-expression model is generally low and further bounded by expression heritability. This raises the question: to what degree does the accuracy of the expression model affect the power of TWAS? Furthermore, would replacing predictions with actual, experimentally determined expressions improve power? To answer these questions, we compared the power of GWAS, TWAS, and a hypothetical protocol utilizing real expression data. We derived non-centrality parameters (NCPs) for linear mixed models (LMMs) to enable closed-form calculations of statistical power that do not rely on specific protocol implementations. We examined two representative scenarios: causality (genotype contributes to phenotype through expression) and pleiotropy (genotype contributes directly to both phenotype and expression), and also tested the effects of various properties including expression heritability. Our analysis reveals two main outcomes: (1) Under pleiotropy, the use of predicted expressions in TWAS is superior to actual expressions. This explains why TWAS can function with weak expression models, and shows that TWAS remains relevant even when real expressions are available. (2) GWAS outperforms TWAS when expression heritability is below a threshold of 0.04 under causality, or 0.06 under pleiotropy. Analysis of existing publications suggests that TWAS has been misapplied in place of GWAS, in situations where expression heritability is low.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationTranscriptomeAlgorithmsGene Expression ProfilingGenetic PleiotropyGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansModels, GeneticPhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID33635859
PMCPMC7946362

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.