4.8 Review

Genome-wide Association Studies in Ancestrally Diverse Populations: Opportunities, Methods, Pitfalls, and Recommendations

Journal

CELL
Volume 179, Issue 3, Pages 589-603

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.051

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [U01 MH109528, MH109539, MH109536, MH109501, MH109514, MH109499, MH109532]
  2. NIH [K01DK114379, R21AI139012, K01 MH113848, K99MH117229]
  3. Wellcome Trust [212360/Z/18/Z]
  4. Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research
  5. National Institutes of Health [5U01MH109539]
  6. Stanford Center for Computational, Evolutionary, and Human Genomics (CEHG)
  7. NARSAD Young Investigator Award [22604]
  8. CONICYT FONDECYT [1181365]
  9. CONICYT FONDEF [ID1910116]
  10. Stanford Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences [UL1 TR001085]
  11. Swedish Research Council [D0886501]
  12. Horizon 2020 Program of the European Union [610307]
  13. US NIMH [U01 MH109528, R01 MH077139]
  14. Zhengxu & Ying He Foundation
  15. UKRI Innovation-HDR-UK Fellowship [MR/S003061/1]
  16. Wellcome Trust [212360/Z/18/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  17. MRC [MR/S003061/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have focused primarily on populations of European descent, but it is essential that diverse populations become better represented. Increasing diversity among study participants will advance our understanding of genetic architecture in all populations and ensure that genetic research is broadly applicable. To facilitate and promote research in multiancestry and admixed cohorts, we outline key methodological considerations and highlight opportunities, challenges, solutions, and areas in need of development. Despite the perception that analyzing genetic data from diverse populations is difficult, it is scientifically and ethically imperative, and there is an expanding analytical toolbox to do it well.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available