4.7 Article

Proper joint analysis of summary association statistics requires the adjustment of heterogeneity in SNP coverage pattern

Journal

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 1337-1343

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbx072

Keywords

genome-wide association study; summary data reporting; multi-locus analyses; false positive

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
  2. Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As meta-analysis results published by consortia of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) become increasingly available, many association summary statistics-based multi-locus tests have been developed to jointly evaluate multiple single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to reveal novel genetic architectures of various complex traits. The validity of these approaches relies on the accurate estimate of z-score correlations at considered SNPs, which in turn requires knowledge on the set of SNPs assessed by each study participating in the meta-analysis. However, this exact SNP coverage information is usually unavailable from the meta-analysis results published by GWAS consortia. In the absence of the coverage information, researchers typically estimate the z-score correlations by making oversimplified coverage assumptions. We show through real studies that such a practice can generate highly inflated type I errors, and we demonstrate the proper way to incorporate correct coverage information into multi-locus analyses. We advocate that consortia should make SNP coverage information available when posting their meta-analysis results, and that investigators who develop analytic tools for joint analyses based on summary data should pay attention to the variation in SNP coverage and adjust for it appropriately.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available