Evaluating 17 methods incorporating biological function with GWAS summary statistics to accelerate discovery demonstrates a tradeoff between high sensitivity and high positive predictive value

1Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Where sufficiently large genome-wide association study (GWAS) samples are not currently available or feasible, methods that leverage increasing knowledge of the biological function of variants may illuminate discoveries without increasing sample size. We comprehensively evaluated 17 functional weighting methods for identifying novel associations. We assessed the performance of these methods using published results from multiple GWAS waves across each of five complex traits. Although no method achieved both high sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for any trait, a subset of methods utilizing pleiotropy and expression quantitative trait loci nominated variants with high PPV (>75%) for multiple traits. Application of functionally weighting methods to enhance GWAS power for locus discovery is unlikely to circumvent the need for larger sample sizes in truly underpowered GWAS, but these results suggest that applying functional weighting to GWAS can accurately nominate additional novel loci from available samples for follow-up studies.

References Powered by Scopus

This article is free to access.

This article is free to access.

7774Citations
4107Readers

Cited by Powered by Scopus

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moore, A., Marks, J. A., Quach, B. C., Guo, Y., Bierut, L. J., Gaddis, N. C., … Johnson, E. O. (2023). Evaluating 17 methods incorporating biological function with GWAS summary statistics to accelerate discovery demonstrates a tradeoff between high sensitivity and high positive predictive value. Communications Biology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05413-w

Readers over time

‘23‘24036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

44%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

22%

Researcher 2

22%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

11%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

38%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 3

38%

Computer Science 1

13%

Engineering 1

13%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0