» Articles » PMID: 18300295

Estimation of Significance Thresholds for Genomewide Association Scans

Overview
Journal Genet Epidemiol
Specialties Genetics
Public Health
Date 2008 Feb 27
PMID 18300295
Citations 345
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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 x 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.

Citing Articles

A Haplotype GWAS in Syndromic Familial Colorectal Cancer.

Vermani L, Samola Winnberg J, Liu W, Soller V, Sjodin T, Lindblad M Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 26(2).

PMID: 39859530 PMC: 11765965. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26020817.


Comparing performances of different statistical models and multiple threshold methods in a nested association mapping population of wheat.

Sandhu K, Burke A, Merrick L, Pumphrey M, Carter A Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1460353.

PMID: 39416483 PMC: 11482037. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1460353.


Causal associations and shared genetic etiology of neurodegenerative diseases with epigenetic aging and human longevity.

Guo Y, Ma G, Wang Y, Lin T, Hu Y, Zang T Aging Cell. 2024; 23(11):e14271.

PMID: 39300745 PMC: 11561668. DOI: 10.1111/acel.14271.


Genome-wide association study of susceptibility to infection in cystic fibrosis.

Lin B, Gong J, Keenan K, Lin F, Lin Y, Mesinele J Eur Respir J. 2024; 64(5).

PMID: 39117430 PMC: 11540985. DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00062-2024.


Using the Strategy of Genome-Wide Association Studies to Identify Genetic Markers of Suicidal Behavior: A Narrative Review.

Rozanov V, Mazo G Consort Psychiatr. 2024; 5(2):63-77.

PMID: 39072004 PMC: 11272302. DOI: 10.17816/CP15495.


References
1.
Dudbridge F, Koeleman B . Efficient computation of significance levels for multiple associations in large studies of correlated data, including genomewide association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2004; 75(3):424-35. PMC: 1182021. DOI: 10.1086/423738. View

2.
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 Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(6):434-42. PMC: 7713993. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh075. View

3.
Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

4.
Barrett J, Cardon L . Evaluating coverage of genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2006; 38(6):659-62. DOI: 10.1038/ng1801. View

5.
Thomas D, Clayton D . Betting odds and genetic associations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(6):421-3. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh094. View