Abstract
Meta-analysis is pervasively used to combine multiple genome-wide association studies (GWAS) into a more powerful whole. To resolve causal variants, meta-analysis studies typically apply summary statistics-based fine-mapping methods as they are applied to single-cohort studies. However, it is unclear whether heterogeneous characteristics of each cohort (e.g., ancestry, sample size, phenotyping, genotyping, or imputation) affect fine-mapping calibration and recall. Here, we first demonstrate that meta-analysis fine-mapping is substantially miscalibrated in simulations when different genotyping arrays or imputation panels are included. To mitigate these issues, we propose a summary statistics-based QC method, SLALOM, that identifies suspicious loci for meta-analysis fine-mapping by detecting outliers in association statistics based on ancestry-matched local LD structure. Having validated SLALOM performance in simulations and the GWAS Catalog, we applied it to 14 disease endpoints from the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative and found that 68% of loci showed suspicious patterns that call into question fine-mapping accuracy. These predicted suspicious loci were significantly depleted for having likely causal variants, such as nonsynonymous variants, as a lead variant (2.8x; Fisher’s exact P = 6.2 × 10−4). Compared to fine-mapping results in individual biobanks, we found limited evidence of fine-mapping improvement in the GBMI meta-analyses. Although a full solution requires complete synchronization across cohorts, our approach identifies likely spurious results in meta-analysis fine-mapping. We urge extreme caution when interpreting fine-mapping results from meta-analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
M.J.D. is a founder of Maze Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
M.K. was supported by a Nakajima Foundation Fellowship and the Masason Foundation. H.K.F. was funded by NIH grant DP5 OD024582.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study involves only openly available GWAS summary statistics, which can be obtained from: * the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative, https://www.globalbiobankmeta.org/resources * the GWAS Catalog, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The GBMI summary statistics for the 14 endpoints are available at https://www.globalbiobankmeta.org/resources and are browserble at the GBMI PheWeb website (http://results.globalbiobankmeta.org/).
