ArticlePLoS genetics2026
Multi-ancestry colocalization approaches.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of variants associated with complex traits, but many are non-causal. Statistical fine-mapping methods aim to pinpoint the most likely causal variants among the many associated ones. While most fine-mapping methods were originally limited to single ancestry analysis, multi-ancestry fine-mapping methods are now available, leveraging differences in linkage disequilibrium (LD) and minor allele frequencies (MAFs) across ancestries to improve fine-mapping resolution. However, the biological relevance of the putative causal variants identified through fine-mapping often remains unclear. Colocalization methods improve interpretability by integrating GWAS data with other functional genomics datasets to assess whether two traits share the same causal variants. Despite the growing availability of multi-ancestry data, there are currently no established methods for multi-ancestry colocalization. In this study, we propose multi-ancestry colocalization approaches through the integration of multi-ancestry fine-mapping methods, SuSiEx and MsCAVIAR, with single ancestry colocalization methods, coloc and eCAVIAR. We introduce coloc_SuSiEx, eCAVIAR_SuSiEx, eMsCAVIAR and coloc_MsCAVIAR. The performance of the proposed approaches is evaluated and compared through simulation studies. In loci with a single causal variant, credible set sizes across the four approaches were comparable, as was the prioritization of the true causal variant. MsCAVIAR-based approaches were more computationally expensive compared to SuSiEx-based approaches, which is an important consideration for the analysis of regions with multiple causal variants. Compared to the coloc-based approaches, the eCAVIAR-based approaches tended to report lower loci level colocalization posterior probabilities. For the analysis of loci with multiple causal variants, coloc_SuSiEx is the preferred approach. We apply the proposed approaches to perform a colocalization analysis of multi-ancestry T2D GWAS data from the DIAMANTE Consortium and European pQTL data from the INTERVAL study. This work addresses the increasing need for multi-ancestry approaches to colocalization analysis as more multi-ancestry data become available.
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.