Empirical estimation of genome-wide significance thresholds based on the 1000 Genomes Project data set
Journal of Human Genetics, ISSN: 1435-232X, Vol: 61, Issue: 10, Page: 861-866
2016
- 74Citations
- 119Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations74
- Citation Indexes74
- 74
- CrossRef64
- Captures119
- Readers119
- 119
Article Description
To assess the statistical significance of associations between variants and traits, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) should employ an appropriate threshold that accounts for the massive burden of multiple testing in the study. Although most studies in the current literature commonly set a genome-wide significance threshold at the level of P=5.0 × 10 -8, the adequacy of this value for respective populations has not been fully investigated. To empirically estimate thresholds for different ancestral populations, we conducted GWAS simulations using the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 data set for Africans (AFR), Europeans (EUR), Admixed Americans (AMR), East Asians (EAS) and South Asians (SAS). The estimated empirical genome-wide significance thresholds were P sig =3.24 × 10 -8 (AFR), 9.26 × 10 -8 (EUR), 1.83 × 10 -7 (AMR), 1.61 × 10 -7 (EAS) and 9.46 × 10 -8 (SAS). We additionally conducted trans-ethnic meta-analyses across all populations (ALL) and all populations except for AFR (ΔAFR), which yielded P sig =3.25 × 10 -8 (ALL) and 4.20 × 10 -8 (ΔAFR). Our results indicate that the current threshold (P=5.0 × 10 -8) is overly stringent for all ancestral populations except for Africans; however, we should employ a more stringent threshold when conducting a meta-analysis, regardless of the presence of African samples.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know