Abstract
The increasing availability of diverse biobanks has enabled multi-ancestry genome-wide association studies (GWAS), enhancing the discovery of genetic variants across traits and diseases. However, the choice of an optimal method remains debated due to challenges in statistical power differences across ancestral groups and approaches to account for population structure. Two primary strategies exist: (1) Pooled analysis, which combines individuals from all genetic backgrounds into a single dataset while adjusting for population stratification using principal components, increasing the sample size and statistical power but requiring careful control of population stratification. (2) Meta-analysis, which performs ancestry-group-specific GWAS and subsequently combines summary statistics, potentially capturing fine-scale population structure, but facing limitations in handling admixed individuals. Using large-scale simulations with varying sample sizes and ancestry compositions, we compare these methods alongside real data analyses of eight continuous and five binary traits from the UK Biobank (N≈324,000) and All of Us Research Program (N≈207,000). Our results demonstrate that pooled analysis generally exhibits better statistical power while effectively adjusting for population stratification. We further present a theoretical framework linking power differences to allele frequency variations across populations. These findings, validated across both biobanks, highlight pooled analysis as a robust and scalable strategy for multi-ancestry GWAS, improving genetic discovery while maintaining rigorous population structure control.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is funded by: NIH Research Grant U01CA261339 (J.A.D.), NIH Training Grant T32GM135117 and NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-2140743 (T.C.), NIH intramural research funding (H.X., X.W., P.K and H.Z.).
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:
UK Biobank: Ethical approval was granted by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West, Haydock (Reference Number: 11/NW/0382). Detailed information can be found here: https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/media/cgjh1ohn/favourable-ethical-opinion-and-rtb-approval-16-nw-0274-200778-may-2016.pdf All of Us: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the All of Us Research Program. Detailed information can be found here: https://allofus.nih.gov/about/who-we-are/institutional-review-board-irb-of-all-of-us-research-program.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The simulated data for 600,000 subjects from five ancestries were downloaded from here: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/COXHAP. The UK Biobank phenotype and genotype data used in this study are available to registered researchers through the UKB data-access protocol and require an approved access application. All of Us phenotype and genotype data can be accessed through the All of Us Research Workbench (https://workbench.researchallofus.org/). All data used in this study are available to registered researchers with controlled-tier access through the All of Us data-access protocol.
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/COXHAP
