ArticleHuman molecular genetics2024
Impact of the inaccessible genome on genotype imputation and genome-wide association studies.
Article in Human molecular genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A phenome-wide association study of CNVs genotyped from genome sequencing read depth in the UK Biobank.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Establishing Best Practices for Clinical GWAS: Tackling Imputation and Data Quality Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genotype imputation is widely used in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, both the genotyping chips and imputation reference panels are dependent on next-generation sequencing (NGS). Due to the nature of NGS, some regions of the genome are inaccessible to sequencing. To date, there has been no complete evaluation of these regions and their impact on the identification of associations in GWAS remains unclear. In this study, we systematically assess the extent to which variants in inaccessible regions are underrepresented on genotyping chips and imputation reference panels, in GWAS results and in variant databases. We also determine the proportion of genes located in inaccessible regions and compare the results across variant masks defined by the 1000 Genomes Project and the TOPMed program. Overall, fewer variants were observed in inaccessible regions in all categories analyzed. Depending on the mask used and normalized for region size, only 4%-17% of the genotyped variants are located in inaccessible regions and 52 to 581 genes were almost completely inaccessible. From the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, we present a case study of an association located in an inaccessible region that is driven by genotyped variants and cannot be reproduced by imputation in GRCh37. We conclude that genotyping, NGS, genotype imputation and downstream analyses such as GWAS and fine mapping are systematically biased in inaccessible regions, due to missed variants and spurious associations. To help researchers assess gene and variant accessibility, we provide an online application (https://gab.gm.eurac.edu).
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.