2013
DOI: 10.1038/nrg3457
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pitfalls of predicting complex traits from SNPs

Abstract: The success of genome-wide association studies has led to increasing interest in making predictions of complex trait phenotypes including disease from genotype data. Rigorous assessment of the value of predictors is critical before implementation. Here we discuss some of the limitations and pitfalls of prediction analysis and show how naïve implementations can lead to severe bias and misinterpretation of results.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
641
1
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 668 publications
(659 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
16
641
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…3B) using the overdominant encoding. We conclude that our strategy enabled excellent phenotypic predictions and subsequent estimation of variance in our diallel, but we note that variance estimates cannot be necessarily extrapolated to other genotypes (49). We further estimated the contribution of the significant loci to total phenotypic variation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…3B) using the overdominant encoding. We conclude that our strategy enabled excellent phenotypic predictions and subsequent estimation of variance in our diallel, but we note that variance estimates cannot be necessarily extrapolated to other genotypes (49). We further estimated the contribution of the significant loci to total phenotypic variation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…However, there is no overlap between the Australian at‐risk subjects and the PGC discovery sample, nor are the Australian at‐risk subjects related to this sample. While the overall contribution of those NIMH relatives to the PGC discovery sample was very small (<2% of the cases from the PGC discovery dataset), our findings should be considered as an extension rather than an independent replication of the PGC findings (see also discussion in [Wray et al, 2013]). Using only the most significant SNPs is also a limitation of our study, and we acknowledge that many more variants of importance in conferring risk to bipolar disorder have not been assessed.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Indeed, fewer than half of the 32 SNPs in our panel are represented on any one high‐density SNP chip currently commercially available, although direct genotyping of a larger number of SNPs showing nominally significant association will be possible with the PsychChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Imputation was used in the determination of genotypes in the unrelated control group for AUC estimation, and while imputation accuracy was high (97.4% concordance), this is a limitation of the AUC analysis and, together with the small overlap between the PGC discovery sample and the US family samples, should be taken into consideration with interpretation of the AUC data [Wray et al, 2013]. It should be noted that limitations of genotyping platform and imputation did not apply to the key within‐family results.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11,12 Originally applied to animal and plant breeding, 13,14 LMMs have become a powerful method to estimate SNP-based heritability using GWAS data. 15,16 By assuming a common distribution that describes the allelic effects at all SNPs and focusing on the aggregated genetic effects rather than individual genetic effects, LMMs and BLUP are particularly attractive for modeling polygenic architecture. On the other hand, to capture minute effects spread over a majority of the genome, this assumed common distributionusually a Gaussian distribution-fails to capture major trait loci with large effects efficiently.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%