{"title":"GWAS在欧洲血统大队列中的显著性阈值。","authors":"Evans K Cheruiyot, Tingyan Yang, Allan F McRae","doi":"10.1093/genetics/iyaf056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While the P-value threshold of 5.0×10-8 remains the standard for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in humans and other species, it still needs to be updated to reflect the current era of large-scale GWAS, where tens of thousands of sample sizes are used to discover genetic associations at loci with smaller minor allele frequencies. In this study, we used a dataset of 348,501 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank to determine the GWAS thresholds required for multiple testing corrections when considering rare and common variants in additive and dominant GWAS models. Additionally, we employed conditional and joint analysis to quantify the proportion of false significant hits in the GWAS results for 72 traits in the UK Biobank when applying the traditional GWAS cutoff vs our newly proposed P-value thresholds. Overall, the results indicate that the conventional GWAS significance threshold of 5.0×10-8 yields a false-positive rate of between 20% and 30% in GWAS studies that utilize large sample sizes and less common variants. Instead, a more stringent GWAS P-value threshold of 5.0×10-9 is needed when rare variants (with minor allele frequency > 0.1%) are included in the association test for both additive and dominance models within the European ancestry population. However, further validation across diverse datasets and study designs, is needed to evaluate the broader applicability of this proposed threshold.</p>","PeriodicalId":48925,"journal":{"name":"Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12059634/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GWAS significance thresholds in large cohorts of European ancestry.\",\"authors\":\"Evans K Cheruiyot, Tingyan Yang, Allan F McRae\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/genetics/iyaf056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While the P-value threshold of 5.0×10-8 remains the standard for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in humans and other species, it still needs to be updated to reflect the current era of large-scale GWAS, where tens of thousands of sample sizes are used to discover genetic associations at loci with smaller minor allele frequencies. In this study, we used a dataset of 348,501 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank to determine the GWAS thresholds required for multiple testing corrections when considering rare and common variants in additive and dominant GWAS models. Additionally, we employed conditional and joint analysis to quantify the proportion of false significant hits in the GWAS results for 72 traits in the UK Biobank when applying the traditional GWAS cutoff vs our newly proposed P-value thresholds. Overall, the results indicate that the conventional GWAS significance threshold of 5.0×10-8 yields a false-positive rate of between 20% and 30% in GWAS studies that utilize large sample sizes and less common variants. Instead, a more stringent GWAS P-value threshold of 5.0×10-9 is needed when rare variants (with minor allele frequency > 0.1%) are included in the association test for both additive and dominance models within the European ancestry population. However, further validation across diverse datasets and study designs, is needed to evaluate the broader applicability of this proposed threshold.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12059634/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyaf056\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyaf056","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
GWAS significance thresholds in large cohorts of European ancestry.
While the P-value threshold of 5.0×10-8 remains the standard for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in humans and other species, it still needs to be updated to reflect the current era of large-scale GWAS, where tens of thousands of sample sizes are used to discover genetic associations at loci with smaller minor allele frequencies. In this study, we used a dataset of 348,501 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank to determine the GWAS thresholds required for multiple testing corrections when considering rare and common variants in additive and dominant GWAS models. Additionally, we employed conditional and joint analysis to quantify the proportion of false significant hits in the GWAS results for 72 traits in the UK Biobank when applying the traditional GWAS cutoff vs our newly proposed P-value thresholds. Overall, the results indicate that the conventional GWAS significance threshold of 5.0×10-8 yields a false-positive rate of between 20% and 30% in GWAS studies that utilize large sample sizes and less common variants. Instead, a more stringent GWAS P-value threshold of 5.0×10-9 is needed when rare variants (with minor allele frequency > 0.1%) are included in the association test for both additive and dominance models within the European ancestry population. However, further validation across diverse datasets and study designs, is needed to evaluate the broader applicability of this proposed threshold.
期刊介绍:
GENETICS is published by the Genetics Society of America, a scholarly society that seeks to deepen our understanding of the living world by advancing our understanding of genetics. Since 1916, GENETICS has published high-quality, original research presenting novel findings bearing on genetics and genomics. The journal publishes empirical studies of organisms ranging from microbes to humans, as well as theoretical work.
While it has an illustrious history, GENETICS has changed along with the communities it serves: it is not your mentor''s journal.
The editors make decisions quickly – in around 30 days – without sacrificing the excellence and scholarship for which the journal has long been known. GENETICS is a peer reviewed, peer-edited journal, with an international reach and increasing visibility and impact. All editorial decisions are made through collaboration of at least two editors who are practicing scientists.
GENETICS is constantly innovating: expanded types of content include Reviews, Commentary (current issues of interest to geneticists), Perspectives (historical), Primers (to introduce primary literature into the classroom), Toolbox Reviews, plus YeastBook, FlyBook, and WormBook (coming spring 2016). For particularly time-sensitive results, we publish Communications. As part of our mission to serve our communities, we''ve published thematic collections, including Genomic Selection, Multiparental Populations, Mouse Collaborative Cross, and the Genetics of Sex.