IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0027964.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Underestimated Effect Sizes in GWAS: Fundamental Limitations of Single SNP Analysis for Dichotomous Phenotypes

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Stringer
  • Naomi R Wray
  • René S Kahn
  • Eske M Derks

Abstract

Complex diseases are often highly heritable. However, for many complex traits only a small proportion of the heritability can be explained by observed genetic variants in traditional genome-wide association (GWA) studies. Moreover, for some of those traits few significant SNPs have been identified. Single SNP association methods test for association at a single SNP, ignoring the effect of other SNPs. We show using a simple multi-locus odds model of complex disease that moderate to large effect sizes of causal variants may be estimated as relatively small effect sizes in single SNP association testing. This underestimation effect is most severe for diseases influenced by numerous risk variants. We relate the underestimation effect to the concept of non-collapsibility found in the statistics literature. As described, continuous phenotypes generated with linear genetic models are not affected by this underestimation effect. Since many GWA studies apply single SNP analysis to dichotomous phenotypes, previously reported results potentially underestimate true effect sizes, thereby impeding identification of true effect SNPs. Therefore, when a multi-locus model of disease risk is assumed, a multi SNP analysis may be more appropriate.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Stringer & Naomi R Wray & René S Kahn & Eske M Derks, 2011. "Underestimated Effect Sizes in GWAS: Fundamental Limitations of Single SNP Analysis for Dichotomous Phenotypes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0027964
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027964
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027964&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0027964?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haikady N Nagaraja & Shane Sanders, 2020. "The aggregation paradox for statistical rankings and nonparametric tests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0027964. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.