TY - JOUR
T1 - Author Correction
T2 - Characterizing rare and low-frequency height-associated variants in the Japanese population (Nature Communications, (2019), 10, 1, (4393), 10.1038/s41467-019-12276-5)
AU - Akiyama, Masato
AU - Ishigaki, Kazuyoshi
AU - Sakaue, Saori
AU - Momozawa, Yukihide
AU - Horikoshi, Momoko
AU - Hirata, Makoto
AU - Matsuda, Koichi
AU - Ikegawa, Shiro
AU - Takahashi, Atsushi
AU - Kanai, Masahiro
AU - Suzuki, Sadao
AU - Matsui, Daisuke
AU - Naito, Mariko
AU - Yamaji, Taiki
AU - Iwasaki, Motoki
AU - Sawada, Norie
AU - Tanno, Kozo
AU - Sasaki, Makoto
AU - Hozawa, Atsushi
AU - Minegishi, Naoko
AU - Wakai, Kenji
AU - Tsugane, Shoichiro
AU - Shimizu, Atsushi
AU - Yamamoto, Masayuki
AU - Okada, Yukinori
AU - Murakami, Yoshinori
AU - Kubo, Michiaki
AU - Kamatani, Yoichiro
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, The Author(s).
PY - 2020/12/1
Y1 - 2020/12/1
N2 - In the original version of this paper, under the subheading “Genome-wide association study” in the last-but-one sentence, the number of variants included in the analysis of overlap between GWAS variants in the BBJ and in European population GWAS was incorrectly given as 1416, leading to incorrect association results. The correct number of analysed variants is 1417 and the sentences should read “Of these variants, 1417 variants were evaluated in our GWAS (Supplementary Data 6), and 772 variants were nominally associated (PGWAS < 0.05) with the consistent direction of effects. These 772 variants represented a significant positive correlation in the effect sizes between our GWAS and the meta-analysis of GIANT and UKB (Pearson’s r = 0.82, P = 7.00 × 10−189), suggesting that these are shared height-associated variants across populations.” In addition, the list of variants in Supplementary Data 6 (“Associations of Japanese GWAS at reported variants in large-scale European GWAS”) was incorrect. Two out of 1417 evaluated variants were inadvertently omitted from the table while 460 variants were included by mistake (based on overlap of BBJ GWAS with 3290 lead variants from European GWAS instead of 2481 variants from the nonconditioned analysis, which would have been correct). The corrected Supplementary Data 6 lists the correct 1417 variants obtained in this analysis. Finally, there was a typo in the methods section, under the subheading “Genotyping and imputation” in the fourth sentence. The sentence originally read “We further compared the genotypes of the overlapping variants between the GWAS array and WGS and excluded variants with a concordance rate <99.5% or a non-reference concordance rate ≥0.5%” where the second “concordance” (in “non-reference concordance rate ≥ 0.5%”) should have been “discordance”. All of these errors have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article and the Supplementary Data 6 file has been updated in the HTML version of the article.
AB - In the original version of this paper, under the subheading “Genome-wide association study” in the last-but-one sentence, the number of variants included in the analysis of overlap between GWAS variants in the BBJ and in European population GWAS was incorrectly given as 1416, leading to incorrect association results. The correct number of analysed variants is 1417 and the sentences should read “Of these variants, 1417 variants were evaluated in our GWAS (Supplementary Data 6), and 772 variants were nominally associated (PGWAS < 0.05) with the consistent direction of effects. These 772 variants represented a significant positive correlation in the effect sizes between our GWAS and the meta-analysis of GIANT and UKB (Pearson’s r = 0.82, P = 7.00 × 10−189), suggesting that these are shared height-associated variants across populations.” In addition, the list of variants in Supplementary Data 6 (“Associations of Japanese GWAS at reported variants in large-scale European GWAS”) was incorrect. Two out of 1417 evaluated variants were inadvertently omitted from the table while 460 variants were included by mistake (based on overlap of BBJ GWAS with 3290 lead variants from European GWAS instead of 2481 variants from the nonconditioned analysis, which would have been correct). The corrected Supplementary Data 6 lists the correct 1417 variants obtained in this analysis. Finally, there was a typo in the methods section, under the subheading “Genotyping and imputation” in the fourth sentence. The sentence originally read “We further compared the genotypes of the overlapping variants between the GWAS array and WGS and excluded variants with a concordance rate <99.5% or a non-reference concordance rate ≥0.5%” where the second “concordance” (in “non-reference concordance rate ≥ 0.5%”) should have been “discordance”. All of these errors have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article and the Supplementary Data 6 file has been updated in the HTML version of the article.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081599372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85081599372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41467-020-15202-2
DO - 10.1038/s41467-020-15202-2
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 32152314
AN - SCOPUS:85081599372
SN - 2041-1723
VL - 11
JO - Nature communications
JF - Nature communications
IS - 1
M1 - 1350
ER -