Estimation of significance thresholds for genomewide association scans

Abstract

The question of what significance threshold is appropriate for genomewide association studies is somewhat unresolved. Previous theoretical suggestions have yet to be validated in practice, whereas permutation testing does not resolve a discrepancy between the genomewide multiplicity of the experiment and the subset of markers actually tested. We used genotypes from the Wellcome Trust Case‐Control Consortium to estimate a genomewide significance threshold for the UK Caucasian population. We subsampled the genotypes at increasing densities, using permutation to estimate the nominal P ‐value for 5% family‐wise error. By extrapolating to infinite density, we estimated the genomewide significance threshold to be about 7.2 × 10 −8 . To reduce the computation time, we considered Patterson's eigenvalue estimator of the effective number of tests, but found it to be an order of magnitude too low for multiplicity correction. However, by fitting a Beta distribution to the minimum P ‐value from permutation replicates, we showed that the effective number is a useful heuristic and suggest that its estimation in this context is an open problem. We conclude that permutation is still needed to obtain genomewide significance thresholds, but with subsampling, extrapolation and estimation of an effective number of tests, the threshold can be standardized for all studies of the same population. Genet. Epidemiol . 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 24

1. 1.

   Barrett JC, Cardon LR. Evaluating coverage of genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2006;38:659-662.

   Not in our library10.1038/ng1801

2. 2.

   Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57:289-300.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Churchill GA, Doerge RW. Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics. 1994;138:963-971.

   Not in our library10.1093/genetics/138.3.963

4. 4.

   Clayton DG. P-values, false discovery rates, and Bayes factors: how should we assess the “significance” of genetic associations? Ann Hum Genet. 2003;67:630.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Cohen JE, Gürtler RE. Modeling household transmission of American trypanosomiasis. Science. 2001;293:694-698.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.1060638

6. 6.

   Dudbridge F, Koeleman BP. Rank truncated product of P-values, with application to genomewide association scans. Genet Epidemiol. 2003;25:360-366.

   Not in our library10.1002/gepi.10264

7. 7.

   Dudbridge F, Koeleman BP. Efficient computation of significance levels for multiple associations in large studies of correlated data, including genomewide association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;75:424-435.

   Not in our library10.1086/423738

8. 8.

   Efron B, Tibshirani R. Empirical Bayes methods and false discovery rates for microarrays. Genet Epidemiol. 2002;23:70-86.

   Not in our library10.1002/gepi.1124

9. 9.

   Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC. Multiple Comparison Procedures. 1987.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    A haplotype map of the human genome. Nature. 2005;437:1299-1320.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature04226

11. 11.
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False · 2005

    Corrected
12. 12.

    Lander ES, Kruglyak L. Genetic dissection of complex traits: guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat Genet. 1995;11:241-247.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1195-241

13. 13.

    Manly KF, Nettleton D, Hwang JT. Genomics, prior probability, and statistical tests of multiple hypotheses. Genome Res. 2004;14:997-1001.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.2156804

14. 14.

    Marchini J, Howie B, Myers S, McVean G, Donnelly P. A new multipoint method for genome-wide association studies by imputation of genotypes. Nat Genet. 2007;39:906-913.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng2088

15. 15.

    Morton NE. Sequential tests for the detection of linkage. Am J Hum Genet. 1955;7:277-318.

    Not in our library

16. 16.
    Population Structure and Eigenanalysis · 2006

    No notice
17. 17.

    Pe'er I, de Bakker PI, Maller J, Yelensky R, Altshuler D, Daly MJ. Evaluating and improving power in whole-genome association studies using fixed marker sets. Nat Genet. 2006;38:663-667.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1816

18. 18.

    Risch N, Merikangas K. The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases. Science. 1996;273:1516-1517.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.273.5281.1516

19. 19.

    Šidák Z. Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1967;78:626-633.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Thomas DC, Clayton DG. Betting odds and genetic associations. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2004;96:421-423.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djh094

21. 21.

    Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, El Ghormli L, Rothman N. Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2004;96:434-442.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djh075

22. 22.

    Wakefield J. A Bayesian measure of the probability of false discovery in genetic epidemiology studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:208-227.

    Not in our library10.1086/519024

23. 23.

    Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature. 2007;447:661-678.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature05911

24. 24.

    Westfall PH, Young SS. Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for P-value Adjustment. 1993.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 21

• Genetic variation in ALDH4A1 is associated with muscle health over the lifespan and across species · 2022
  Not checked
• A Review of Feature Selection Methods for Machine Learning-Based Disease Risk Prediction · 2022
  No notice
• Widespread signatures of natural selection across human complex traits and functional genomic categories · 2021
  No notice
• Revisiting the genome-wide significance threshold for common variant GWAS · 2021
  No notice
• Semantic and cognitive tools to aid statistical science: replace confidence and significance by compatibility and surprise · 2020
  No notice
• The harmonic mean p -value for combining dependent tests · 2019
  Corrected
• Guidance for DNA methylation studies: statistical insights from the Illumina EPIC array · 2019
  No notice
• Improving the odds of drug development success through human genomics: modelling study · 2019
  No notice
• Exploring the association of genetic factors with participation in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children · 2018
  No notice
• GWAS for serum galactose-deficient IgA1 implicates critical genes of the O-glycosylation pathway · 2017
  No notice
• Estimation of a significance threshold for epigenome‐wide association studies · 2017
  No notice
• Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies five modifier loci of lung disease severity in cystic fibrosis · 2015
  No notice
• Six Persistent Research Misconceptions · 2014
  No notice
• Power and Predictive Accuracy of Polygenic Risk Scores · 2013
  Corrected
• Chapter 11: Genome-Wide Association Studies · 2012
  No notice
• A Novel Adaptive Method for the Analysis of Next-Generation Sequencing Data to Detect Complex Trait Associations with Rare Variants Due to Gene Main Effects and Interactions · 2010
  No notice
• Genome-wide association analysis of total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels using the Framingham Heart Study data · 2010
  Not checked
• An Integration of Genome-Wide Association Study and Gene Expression Profiling to Prioritize the Discovery of Novel Susceptibility Loci for Osteoporosis-Related Traits · 2010
  No notice
• Genetic Determinants of Circulating Sphingolipid Concentrations in European Populations · 2009
  No notice
• Meta-Analysis of 28,141 Individuals Identifies Common Variants within Five New Loci That Influence Uric Acid Concentrations · 2009
  No notice

and 1 more

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.