ArticleGenetics2026
The illusion of polygenicity in pool-seq genetic mapping studies: insufficient power can mask simple genetic architectures.
Article in Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging low-cost short-read sequencing: revolutionizing complex trait genetics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pool-seq (pooled sequencing) combines DNA from multiple individuals prior to sequencing, enabling population-level allele frequency estimation without individual genotyping. When employed in a case-control genome-wide association study (GWAS) framework, pool-seq faces a fundamental power limitation: Errors on allele frequency estimates are inversely proportional to sequence coverage and are large at modest coverage levels. Although this power limitation is appreciated, modestly sized pool-seq GWAS lacking unambiguous hits are often interpreted as showing a polygenic genetic architecture. We illustrate that this inference is unwarranted using empirical data from a Drosophila zinc resistance mapping study. Despite achieving >700× sequencing coverage in case and control pools, a directly ascertained SNP-based GWAS failed to reveal clear evidence for major-effect loci. A unique feature of the dataset is that an advanced intercross MPP, with known founders, was employed as the GWAS population. We leverage this unique population structure, in a manner that would not be possible in an outbred panel, to carry out 2 additional GWASs using imputed haplotype- or SNP-frequency estimates, which in contrast uncover localized regions of major effect. The key difference between approaches lies in statistical power: Directly ascertained SNP counts have errors inversely proportional to sequencing coverage, whereas known-founder imputation-based approaches can be considerably more accurate. In outbred populations where imputation cannot be used to obtain more accurate allele frequency estimates, substantially higher coverage than currently envisioned may be required to reliably detect modest allele frequency shifts. This work highlights that insufficiently powered GWAS can mask simple genetic architectures and create the illusion of polygenicity through statistical noise alone.
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.