Cost-effective non-additive GWAS across 2329 diseases in 500,349 individuals
Rattachement africain : us, fi. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Drug candidates supported by genetic evidence are more likely to succeed in clinical trials, with genome-wide association studies (GWAS) providing a key source of such evidence. Standard GWAS approaches assume additive effects of alleles on the phenotype, but non-additive models have also successfully identified novel associations across various traits. Despite their potential, the large-scale application of non-additive GWAS across thousands of phenotypes in biobanks has been limited by high computational costs. To address this challenge, we present a method that leverages the correlation between additive and non-additive p-values to prioritize variants likely to reach genome-wide significance in non-additive analyses. Applied to the FinnGen dataset comprising 500,349 individuals and 2329 phenotypes, this method reduces computational costs by three orders of magnitude while retaining nearly all true non-additive associations, identifying 781 novel loci missed by additive GWAS. We report fine-mapping and colocalization with 571 datasets for novel loci, uncovering likely causal variants and potential insights into biological mechanisms. The authors introduce a cost-efficient, non-additive genome-wide association study pipeline that, when applied to a dominant analysis of 2329 phenotypes in 500,349 individuals, reduced computational costs from $27,000 to $39 and identified 781 new associations.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cost-effective non-additive GWAS across 2329 diseases in 500,349 individuals
- Date Crossref
- 13/12/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.