Correcting for Genomic Inflation Leads to Loss of Power in Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Archit Singh, Lorraine Southam, Konstantinos Hatzikotoulas, Nigel W. Rayner, Ken Suzuki, Henry J. Taylor, Xianyong Yin, Ravi Mandla, Alicia Huerta-Chagoya, Andrew P. Morris, Eleftheria Zeggini, Ozvan Bocher
{"title":"Correcting for Genomic Inflation Leads to Loss of Power in Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis","authors":"Archit Singh,&nbsp;Lorraine Southam,&nbsp;Konstantinos Hatzikotoulas,&nbsp;Nigel W. Rayner,&nbsp;Ken Suzuki,&nbsp;Henry J. Taylor,&nbsp;Xianyong Yin,&nbsp;Ravi Mandla,&nbsp;Alicia Huerta-Chagoya,&nbsp;Andrew P. Morris,&nbsp;Eleftheria Zeggini,&nbsp;Ozvan Bocher","doi":"10.1002/gepi.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Inflation in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics represents a major challenge, for which correction methods have been developed. These include the genomic control (GC) method, which uses the λ-value to correct summary statistics, and the linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSR) method, which uses the LDSR intercept. By using type 2 diabetes (T2D) as an exemplar, we explore factors influencing λ-values and the impact of these corrections on association signals. We find that larger sample sizes increase λ-values due to increased captured polygenicity, while including lower frequency variants decreases λ-values due to reduced power. Comparing T2D genetic associations described in overlapping GWAS meta-analyses of increasing sample size, we find that GC correction reduces the false positive rate and leads to the loss of robust associations. In one of the largest meta-analysis, GC correction results in 39.7% loss of independent loci, substantially reducing the number of detected associations. In comparison, the LDSR intercept correction leads to a loss of up to 25.2% of the independent loci, being therefore less conservative than the GC correction. We conclude that in large, well-powered GWAS meta-analysis of polygenic traits, both GC and LDSR intercept correction leads to power loss, highlighting the need for improved genomic inflation correction methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":12710,"journal":{"name":"Genetic Epidemiology","volume":"49 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gepi.70016","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetic Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gepi.70016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inflation in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics represents a major challenge, for which correction methods have been developed. These include the genomic control (GC) method, which uses the λ-value to correct summary statistics, and the linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSR) method, which uses the LDSR intercept. By using type 2 diabetes (T2D) as an exemplar, we explore factors influencing λ-values and the impact of these corrections on association signals. We find that larger sample sizes increase λ-values due to increased captured polygenicity, while including lower frequency variants decreases λ-values due to reduced power. Comparing T2D genetic associations described in overlapping GWAS meta-analyses of increasing sample size, we find that GC correction reduces the false positive rate and leads to the loss of robust associations. In one of the largest meta-analysis, GC correction results in 39.7% loss of independent loci, substantially reducing the number of detected associations. In comparison, the LDSR intercept correction leads to a loss of up to 25.2% of the independent loci, being therefore less conservative than the GC correction. We conclude that in large, well-powered GWAS meta-analysis of polygenic traits, both GC and LDSR intercept correction leads to power loss, highlighting the need for improved genomic inflation correction methods.

Abstract Image

校正基因组膨胀导致大规模全基因组关联研究荟萃分析的能力丧失
全基因组关联研究(GWAS)汇总统计中的膨胀是一个主要挑战,为此已经开发了校正方法。这些方法包括基因组控制(GC)方法,它使用λ值来校正汇总统计,以及连锁不平衡评分回归(LDSR)方法,它使用LDSR截距。以2型糖尿病(T2D)为例,我们探讨了影响λ值的因素以及这些校正对关联信号的影响。我们发现较大的样本量由于捕获的多基因性增加而增加λ值,而包括较低频率的变体由于功率降低而降低λ值。比较增加样本量的重叠GWAS荟萃分析中描述的T2D遗传关联,我们发现GC校正降低了假阳性率,并导致强大关联的丧失。在一项最大的荟萃分析中,GC校正导致39.7%的独立基因座丢失,大大减少了检测到的关联数量。相比之下,LDSR截距校正导致高达25.2%的独立位点的损失,因此比GC校正更保守。我们得出结论,在对多基因性状进行的大规模、高功率的GWAS荟萃分析中,GC和LDSR截距校正都会导致功率损失,这突出了改进基因组膨胀校正方法的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Genetic Epidemiology
Genetic Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetic Epidemiology is a peer-reviewed journal for discussion of research on the genetic causes of the distribution of human traits in families and populations. Emphasis is placed on the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to human disease as revealed by genetic, epidemiological, and biologic investigations. Genetic Epidemiology primarily publishes papers in statistical genetics, a research field that is primarily concerned with development of statistical, bioinformatical, and computational models for analyzing genetic data. Incorporation of underlying biology and population genetics into conceptual models is favored. The Journal seeks original articles comprising either applied research or innovative statistical, mathematical, computational, or genomic methodologies that advance studies in genetic epidemiology. Other types of reports are encouraged, such as letters to the editor, topic reviews, and perspectives from other fields of research that will likely enrich the field of genetic epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信