Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36042399›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022

A comprehensive comparison of multilocus association methods with summary statistics in genome-wide association studies.

Zhonghe Shao, Ting Wang, Jiahao Qiao, Yuchen Zhang, Shuiping Huang, Ping Zeng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhonghe Shao *Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.
Ting Wang *Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.
Jiahao Qiao *Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.
Yuchen ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.
Shuiping HuangDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.
Ping ZengDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China. zpstat@xzhmu.edu.cn.
Xuzhou Medical College · CN

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853National Natural Science Foundation of China 82173630the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2018M630607the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China BK20181472the Six-Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province of China WSN-087the Social Development Project of Xuzhou City KC20062the Statistical Science Research Project from National Bureau of Statistics of China 2014LY112the Training Project for Youth Teams of Science and Technology Innovation at Xuzhou Medical University TD202008the Youth Foundation of Humanity and Social Science funded by Ministry of Education of China 18YJC910002Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultilocus analysis on a set of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) pre-assigned within a gene constitutes a valuable complement to single-marker analysis by aggregating data on complex traits in a biologically meaningful way. However, despite the existence of a wide variety of SNP-set methods, few comprehensive comparison studies have been previously performed to evaluate the effectiveness of these methods.

resultsWe herein sought to fill this knowledge gap by conducting a comprehensive empirical comparison for 22 commonly-used summary-statistics based SNP-set methods. We showed that only seven methods could effectively control the type I error, and that these well-calibrated approaches had varying power performance under the simulation scenarios. Overall, we confirmed that the burden test was generally underpowered and score-based variance component tests (e.g., sequence kernel association test) were much powerful under the polygenic genetic architecture in both common and rare variant association analyses. We further revealed that two linkage-disequilibrium-free P value combination methods (e.g., harmonic mean P value method and aggregated Cauchy association test) behaved very well under the sparse genetic architecture in simulations and real-data applications to common and rare variant association analyses as well as in expression quantitative trait loci weighted integrative analysis. We also assessed the scalability of these approaches by recording computational time and found that all these methods can be scalable to biobank-scale data although some might be relatively slow.

conclusionIn conclusion, we hope that our findings can offer an important guidance on how to choose appropriate multilocus association analysis methods in post-GWAS era. All the SNP-set methods are implemented in the R package called MCA, which is freely available at https://github.com/biostatpzeng/ .

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideLinkage DisequilibriumMultifactorial InheritancePhenotypeQuantitative Trait LociCommon and rare variant association studyExpression quantitative trait lociGenome-wide association studyIntegrative analysisMultilocus methodP value combination methodSNP-set analysisSummary statistics

Identifiers

PMID36042399
PMCPMC9429742
OpenAlexW4293569112

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.