Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38014124›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Causal interpretations of family GWAS in the presence of heterogeneous effects.

Carl Veller, Molly Przeworski, Graham Coop

Open access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Carl VellerDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago.ORCID 0000-0003-0629-4188
Molly PrzeworskiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University.ORCID 0000-0002-5369-9009
Graham CoopCenter for Population Biology and Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis.ORCID 0000-0001-8431-0302
Columbia University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

New methods for constructing and evaluating polygenic scoresR01HG011432 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PRITCHARD, JONATHAN K · 2020 to 2023
$3.3M
The impact of natural selection and population structure on human genomic variationR35GM136290 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Graham Coop · 2020 to 2026
$2.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG011432NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM136290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Family-based genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have emerged as a gold standard for assessing causal effects of alleles and polygenic scores. Notably, family studies are often claimed to provide an unbiased estimate of the average causal effect (or average treatment effect; ATE) of an allele, on the basis of an analogy between the random transmission of alleles from parents to children and a randomized controlled trial. Here, we show that this interpretation does not hold in general. Because Mendelian segregation only randomizes alleles among children of heterozygotes, the effects of alleles in the children of homozygotes are not observable. Consequently, if an allele has different average effects in the children of homozygotes and heterozygotes, as can arise in the presence of gene-by-environment interactions, gene-by-gene interactions, or differences in LD patterns, family studies provide a biased estimate of the average effect in the sample. At a single locus, family-based association studies can be thought of as providing an unbiased estimate of the average effect in the children of heterozygotes (i.e., a local average treatment effect; LATE). This interpretation does not extend to polygenic scores, however, because different sets of SNPs are heterozygous in each family. Therefore, other than under specific conditions, the within-family regression slope of a PGS cannot be assumed to provide an unbiased estimate for any subset or weighted average of families. Instead, family-based studies can be reinterpreted as enabling an unbiased estimate of the extent to which Mendelian segregation at loci in the PGS contributes to the population-level variance in the trait. Because this estimate does not include the between-family variance, however, this interpretation applies to only (roughly) half of the sample PGS variance. In practice, the potential biases of a family-based GWAS are likely smaller than those arising from confounding in a standard, population-based GWAS, and so family studies remain important for the dissection of genetic contributions to phenotypic variation. Nonetheless, the causal interpretation of family-based GWAS estimates is less straightforward than has been widely appreciated.

Identifiers

PMID38014124
PMCPMC10680648
OpenAlexW4388744892

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.