Anne-Sophie Jannot1, Georg Ehret2, Thomas Perneger3. 1. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: jannot_as@hotmail.com. 2. Division of Cardiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In genome-wide association studies (GWASs), the practice regarding the choice of thresholds of significance and of thresholds used to include single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a further validation stage is not well known. Here, we performed a systematic analysis of all GWASs published in two recent but nonconsecutive periods to assess whether any consensus was emerging regarding the choice of these thresholds. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified 167 GWASs published during the first semester of 2011 and 105 published in the third trimester of 2012 and retrieved the genome-wide threshold of significance and the thresholds to include SNPs in a replication stage if applicable. RESULTS: The proportion of studies using 5 × 10(-8) as a genome-wide significance threshold increased between 2011 and 2012 (40% vs. 64%, P < 0.001), whereas the proportion of articles that gave a justification for this threshold decreased. The distribution of thresholds used to include SNPs in the replication stage remained stable over time (median 10(-5)), and the variance remained large [interquartile range (10(-6), 10(-4))]. CONCLUSION: Although 5 × 10(-8) has become the de facto standard genome-wide threshold, practice regarding the choice of inclusion threshold for the replication step remains heterogeneous and did not ensure the best trade-off between power and type 1 error.
OBJECTIVES: In genome-wide association studies (GWASs), the practice regarding the choice of thresholds of significance and of thresholds used to include single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a further validation stage is not well known. Here, we performed a systematic analysis of all GWASs published in two recent but nonconsecutive periods to assess whether any consensus was emerging regarding the choice of these thresholds. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified 167 GWASs published during the first semester of 2011 and 105 published in the third trimester of 2012 and retrieved the genome-wide threshold of significance and the thresholds to include SNPs in a replication stage if applicable. RESULTS: The proportion of studies using 5 × 10(-8) as a genome-wide significance threshold increased between 2011 and 2012 (40% vs. 64%, P < 0.001), whereas the proportion of articles that gave a justification for this threshold decreased. The distribution of thresholds used to include SNPs in the replication stage remained stable over time (median 10(-5)), and the variance remained large [interquartile range (10(-6), 10(-4))]. CONCLUSION: Although 5 × 10(-8) has become the de facto standard genome-wide threshold, practice regarding the choice of inclusion threshold for the replication step remains heterogeneous and did not ensure the best trade-off between power and type 1 error.
Authors: Kelsey E Grinde; Lisa A Brown; Alexander P Reiner; Timothy A Thornton; Sharon R Browning Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Surya Kumari Vadrevu; Irena Trbojevic-Akmacic; Andrew V Kossenkov; Florent Colomb; Leila B Giron; Alitzel Anzurez; Kenneth Lynn; Karam Mounzer; Alan L Landay; Robert C Kaplan; Emmanouil Papasavvas; Luis J Montaner; Gordan Lauc; Mohamed Abdel-Mohsen Journal: J Leukoc Biol Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.962
Authors: Saskia Selzam; Philip S Dale; Richard K Wagner; John C DeFries; Martin Cederlöf; Paul F O'Reilly; Eva Krapohl; Robert Plomin Journal: Sci Stud Read Date: 2017-03-28
Authors: Juan E Gallo; Juan E Ochoa; Helen R Warren; Elizabeth Misas; Monica M Correa; Jaime A Gallo-Villegas; Gabriel Bedoya; Dagnóvar Aristizábal; Juan G McEwen; Mark J Caulfield; Gianfranco Parati; Oliver K Clay Journal: Int J Cardiol Hypertens Date: 2020-09-15
Authors: Pradeep Suri; Ian B Stanaway; Yanfei Zhang; Maxim B Freidin; Yakov A Tsepilov; David S Carrell; Frances M K Williams; Yurii S Aulchenko; Hakon Hakonarson; Bahram Namjou; David R Crosslin; Gail P Jarvik; Ming Ta Lee Journal: Pain Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Jasmin Divers; Lijun Ma; William Mark Brown; Nicholette D Palmer; Young Choi; Ajay K Israni; Stephen O Pastan; Bruce A Julian; Robert S Gaston; Pamela J Hicks; Amber M Reeves-Daniel; Barry I Freedman Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 3.456