I wonder who has been saying this for a while? :)https://twitter.com/granex/status/1095272687197450240 …
-
Hmm well I did but someone called Emil scorned me for ages for using GWAS significant hits only, arguing for using the entire set, contrary to what appears to be true
I don't know nothing about that! Your reasoning was mistaken (you were arguing along lines of repeated replication not pop strat issues), but the conclusion turns out to be a good idea. Better yet is to use Lee's putative causal snps, as you did, and that changed not much at all.
-
-
I repeatedly insisted that using the full set of Gwas SNPs would dilute the selection signal and argued for using the Gwas significant hits. It is written all over my preprints and Woodley can testify how many times we talked about it. You just didn't get the concept straight
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You never understood the crucial distinction between within pop prediction and among pops, how maximizing the signal in the latter is not the same as maximizing predictive power in the former.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What I wrote in the Holocene selection paper: "Our approach is based on maximizing the signal to noise ratio of directional selection by focusing on the GWAS hits with the highest significance,opposed to maximizing the amount of variance explained,as in within pop GWAS design"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.