ArticleScientific reports2025
Calibrating genome wide significance by minor allele frequency across three major populations.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional genome-wide association study (GWAS) thresholds, notably 5 × 10⁻⁸, were established under assumptions that may not hold across diverse populations and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) analyses. Given the complex linkage disequilibrium structure of the human genome, a single fixed threshold risks inadequate type I error control. Here, we sought to derive minor allele frequency (MAF)-specific, population-tailored significance thresholds using the Li-Ji method across European, African, and Asian cohorts from the 1000 Genomes Project. We partitioned the genome into natural linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks defined by the LDetect database and applied rigorous quality control measures before generating LD matrices. Using the Li-Ji method-we estimated the effective number of independent tests for each block across six MAF thresholds and then aggregated the results for each population. The resulting effective tests were used to calculate Bonferroni-adjusted significance thresholds. Our analysis revealed that for common variants (MAF ≥ 0.05), the significance thresholds in European and Asian populations were somewhat lower than the conventional 5 × 10⁻⁸ benchmark, whereas the African population required considerably more stringent corrections. The inclusion of rarer variants further increased the effective number of independent tests across all groups, thereby shifting the significance thresholds to levels even more stringent than the 5 × 10⁻⁸ benchmark. By applying the Li-Ji method, this study establishes that MAF-specific and population-specific significance thresholds provide a more accurate framework for GWAS analyses. Our findings suggest that the conventional 5 × 10⁻⁸ threshold may be suboptimal, particularly when evaluating rare variants or diverse populations, with important implications for future biobank-scale and precision genomic research.
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.