↓ Skip to main content

Methodological Considerations in Estimation of Phenotype Heritability Using Genome-Wide SNP Data, Illustrated by an Analysis of the Heritability of Height in a Large Sample of African Ancestry Adults

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methodological Considerations in Estimation of Phenotype Heritability Using Genome-Wide SNP Data, Illustrated by an Analysis of the Heritability of Height in a Large Sample of African Ancestry Adults
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0131106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fang Chen, Jing He, Jianqi Zhang, Gary K. Chen, Venetta Thomas, Christine B. Ambrosone, Elisa V. Bandera, Sonja I. Berndt, Leslie Bernstein, William J. Blot, Qiuyin Cai, John Carpten, Graham Casey, Stephen J. Chanock, Iona Cheng, Lisa Chu, Sandra L. Deming, W. Ryan Driver, Phyllis Goodman, Richard B. Hayes, Anselm J. M. Hennis, Ann W. Hsing, Jennifer J. Hu, Sue A. Ingles, Esther M. John, Rick A. Kittles, Suzanne Kolb, M. Cristina Leske, Robert C. Millikan, Kristine R. Monroe, Adam Murphy, Barbara Nemesure, Christine Neslund-Dudas, Sarah Nyante, Elaine A Ostrander, Michael F. Press, Jorge L. Rodriguez-Gil, Ben A. Rybicki, Fredrick Schumacher, Janet L. Stanford, Lisa B. Signorello, Sara S. Strom, Victoria Stevens, David Van Den Berg, Zhaoming Wang, John S. Witte, Suh-Yuh Wu, Yuko Yamamura, Wei Zheng, Regina G. Ziegler, Alexander H. Stram, Laurence N. Kolonel, Loïc Le Marchand, Brian E. Henderson, Christopher A. Haiman, Daniel O. Stram

Abstract

Height has an extremely polygenic pattern of inheritance. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revealed hundreds of common variants that are associated with human height at genome-wide levels of significance. However, only a small fraction of phenotypic variation can be explained by the aggregate of these common variants. In a large study of African-American men and women (n = 14,419), we genotyped and analyzed 966,578 autosomal SNPs across the entire genome using a linear mixed model variance components approach implemented in the program GCTA (Yang et al Nat Genet 2010), and estimated an additive heritability of 44.7% (se: 3.7%) for this phenotype in a sample of evidently unrelated individuals. While this estimated value is similar to that given by Yang et al in their analyses, we remain concerned about two related issues: (1) whether in the complete absence of hidden relatedness, variance components methods have adequate power to estimate heritability when a very large number of SNPs are used in the analysis; and (2) whether estimation of heritability may be biased, in real studies, by low levels of residual hidden relatedness. We addressed the first question in a semi-analytic fashion by directly simulating the distribution of the score statistic for a test of zero heritability with and without low levels of relatedness. The second question was addressed by a very careful comparison of the behavior of estimated heritability for both observed (self-reported) height and simulated phenotypes compared to imputation R2 as a function of the number of SNPs used in the analysis. These simulations help to address the important question about whether today's GWAS SNPs will remain useful for imputing causal variants that are discovered using very large sample sizes in future studies of height, or whether the causal variants themselves will need to be genotyped de novo in order to build a prediction model that ultimately captures a large fraction of the variability of height, and by implication other complex phenotypes. Our overall conclusions are that when study sizes are quite large (5,000 or so) the additive heritability estimate for height is not apparently biased upwards using the linear mixed model; however there is evidence in our simulation that a very large number of causal variants (many thousands) each with very small effect on phenotypic variance will need to be discovered to fill the gap between the heritability explained by known versus unknown causal variants. We conclude that today's GWAS data will remain useful in the future for causal variant prediction, but that finding the causal variants that need to be predicted may be extremely laborious.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Professor 7 14%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Mathematics 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,483,185
of 25,246,334 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,705
of 219,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,671
of 269,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,004
of 6,637 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,246,334 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,637 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.