ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Optimizing strain selection for association studies under hard cost constraints.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative genetics methods can be particularly powerful in model organisms and non-human populations, and we now have strain collections such as recombinant inbred lines, etc. that can be phenotyped. Natural diversity is also valuable in non-model systems that do not yet have reverse genetic tools. However, purchasing and phenotyping large collections can be cost-prohibitive. Strain or sample acquisition costs may also vary dramatically for different strains or isolates. Thus, investigators need efficient strategies to optimize experimental power for a given limited budget. In this study, we evaluate several approaches to optimally select subsets of the total cohort to best maintain power when performing genome-wide association studies. Some approaches focus solely on costs, others on genetic diversity, and some on both simultaneously. Through simulation studies across different minor allele frequencies and SNP effect sizes, we demonstrate that selecting for cost is most beneficial at low-to-moderate budget thresholds, while selecting for diversity is optimal in scenarios involving rare (MAF 5-10%) variants or higher total costs, or when accounting for additional costs per strain studied. We also evaluate these approaches on data from the Hybrid Mouse Diversity Panel (HMDP), and find that an approach that considers both cost and diversity is superior at recovering significant loci and maintaining statistical power under real-world conditions. This approach picks the strains that, for a given budget, minimize the total genetic distance to the strains that were not selected. This approach, which we term "ThriftyMD" (for "Thrifty Minimum Distance"), extends previous distance-based methods to pick a representative panel by explicitly adding a cost constraint. Overall, our results highlight the trade-offs between cost, diversity, and power in GWAS cohort design, and present the ThriftyMD algorithm as a versatile and robust approach for optimizing study design in resource-limited settings.
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.