Changes

== Tags for Previously Described GWAS Hits ==

== Tags for Previously Described GWAS Hits ==

We collected all SNPs reported as associated in the NHGRI list, as of August 16, 2011. This list was augmented with unpublished hits from consortia working on diabetes, blood lipids, blood pressure, lung function, myocardical infraction, antropometric traits, psychiatric traits, Crohn's disease and age related macular degeneration resulting in a total of 5,542 GWAS hit SNPs.

We collected all SNPs reported as associated in the NHGRI list, as of August 16, 2011. This list was augmented with unpublished hits from consortia working on diabetes, blood lipids, blood pressure, lung function, myocardical infraction, antropometric traits, psychiatric traits, Crohn's disease and age related macular degeneration resulting in a total of 5,542 GWAS hit SNPs. We were inclusive in our SNP selection criteria, including all SNPs in the NHGRI list whether or not they reached the standard ''p''<5x10^-8 criteria for genomewide significance.

 

Among the GWAS hit SNPs, 5,325 could be designed into Illumina assays.

 

'''NOTE:''' Also have lists for myocardial infraction and lung function. Would disclosing that these lists are included among a large set of thousands of tag SNPs seem reasonable?? What to do?

 

'''NOTE2:''' I originally planned to filter this on p-value, requiring at least 5x10^-8. However, it seems that among the 5000+ hits on the NHGRI list, more than half don't meet this p-value threshold and also that some of the SNPs that don't meet the threshold are quite interesting (in a random inspection). Unless someone wants to debug how the NHGRI p-values were tabulated (combined after replication versus discovery sample, for example), I propose we just aim to tag everything.

== Ancestry Informative Markers ==

== Ancestry Informative Markers ==