Giuseppe Tosto

Objective The performances of popular genome-wide association study (GWAS) models have not been examined yet in a consistent manner under the scenario of genetic admixture, which introduces several challenging aspects: heterogeneity of minor allele frequency (MAF), wide spectrum of case–control ratio, varying effect sizes, etc. Methods We generated a cohort of synthetic individuals (N = 19 234) that simulates (i) a large sample size; (ii) two-way admixture (Native American and European ancestry) and (iii) a binary phenotype. We then benchmarked three popular GWAS tools [generalized linear mixed model associated test (GMMAT), scalable and accurate implementation of generalized mixed model (SAIGE) and Tractor] by computing inflation factors and power calculations under different MAFs, case–control ratios, sample sizes and varying ancestry proportions. We also employed a cohort of Peruvians (N = 249) to further examine the performances of the testing models on (i) real genetic and phenotype data and (ii) small sample sizes. Results In the synthetic cohort, SAIGE performed better than GMMAT and Tractor in terms of type-I error rate, especially under severe unbalanced case–control ratio. On the contrary, power analysis identified Tractor as the best method to pinpoint ancestry-specific causal variants but showed decreased power when the effect size displayed limited heterogeneity between ancestries. In the Peruvian cohort, only Tractor identified two suggestive loci (P-value $\le 1\ast{10}^{-5}$) associated with Native American ancestry. Discussion The current study illustrates best practice and limitations for available GWAS tools under the scenario of genetic admixture. Incorporating local ancestry in GWAS analyses boosts power, although careful consideration of complex scenarios (small sample sizes, imbalance case–control ratio, MAF heterogeneity) is needed.