Genetic association results are often interpreted with the assumption that study participation does not affect downstream analyses. Understanding the genetic basis of participation bias is challenging since it requires the genotypes of unseen individuals. Here we demonstrate that it is possible to estimate comparative biases by performing a genome-wide association study contrasting one subgroup versus another. For example, we showed that sex exhibits artifactual autosomal heritability in the presence of sex-differential participation bias. By performing a genome-wide association study of sex in approximately 3.3 million males and females, we identified over 158 autosomal loci spuriously associated with sex and highlighted complex traits underpinning differences in study participation between the sexes. For example, the body mass index-increasing allele at FTO was observed at higher frequency in males compared to females (odds ratio = 1.02, P = 4.4 × 10 −36 ). Finally, we demonstrated how these biases can potentially lead to incorrect inferences in downstream analyses and propose a conceptual framework for addressing such biases. Our findings highlight a new challenge that genetic studies may face as sample sizes continue to grow.

Data availabilitySummary statistics generated by COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative are available online (https://www.covid19hg.org/results/r6/). The analyses described here use the freeze 6 data. The COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative continues to regularly release new data freezes. Summary statistics for samples from individuals of non-European ancestry are not currently available owing to the small individual sample sizes of these groups, but the results for 23 loci lead variants are reported in Supplementary Table 3. Individual-level data can be requested directly from the authors of the contributing studies, listed in Supplementary Table 1.

In classical statistical genetic theory, a dominance effect is defined as the deviation from a purely additive genetic effect for a biallelic variant. Dominance effects are well documented in model organisms. However, evidence in humans is limited to a handful of traits, particularly those with strong single locus effects such as hair color. We carried out the largest systematic evaluation of dominance effects on phenotypic variance in the UK Biobank. We curated and tested over 1,000 phenotypes for dominance effects through GWAS scans, identifying 175 loci at genome-wide significance correcting for multiple testing (P < 4.7 × 10-11). Power to detect non-additive loci is much lower than power to detect additive effects for complex traits: based on the relative effect sizes at genome-wide significant additive loci, we estimate a factor of 20-30 increase in sample size will be necessary to capture clear evidence of dominance similar to those currently observed for additive effects. However, these localised dominance hits do not extend to a significant aggregate contribution to phenotypic variance genome-wide. By deriving a version of LD-score regression to detect dominance effects tagged by common variation genome-wide (minor allele frequency > 0.05), we found no strong evidence of a contribution to phenotypic variance when accounting for multiple testing. Across the 267 continuous and 793 binary traits the median contribution was 5.73 × 10-4, with unbiased point estimates ranging from -0.261 to 0.131. Finally, we introduce dominance fine-mapping to explore whether the more rapid decay of dominance LD can be leveraged to find causal variants. These results provide the most comprehensive assessment of dominance trait variation in humans to date.