Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17002500›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2006

Two-stage two-locus models in genome-wide association.

David M Evans, Jonathan Marchini, Andrew P Morris, Lon R Cardon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 125 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

125 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 232 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Association betweenNeural regeneration research · 2019
    Article
  15. Identification of epistasis loci underlying rice flowering time by controlling population stratification and polygenic effect.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The OncoArray Consortium: A Network for Understanding the Genetic Architecture of Common Cancers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

65 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David M EvansWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. davide@well.ox.ac.uk
Jonathan Marchini
Andrew P Morris
Lon R Cardon
Centre for Human Genetics · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

NEI NIH HHS EY-126562Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies in model organisms suggest that epistasis may play an important role in the etiology of complex diseases and traits in humans. With the era of large-scale genome-wide association studies fast approaching, it is important to quantify whether it will be possible to detect interacting loci using realistic sample sizes in humans and to what extent undetected epistasis will adversely affect power to detect association when single-locus approaches are employed. We therefore investigated the power to detect association for an extensive range of two-locus quantitative trait models that incorporated varying degrees of epistasis. We compared the power to detect association using a single-locus model that ignored interaction effects, a full two-locus model that allowed for interactions, and, most important, two two-stage strategies whereby a subset of loci initially identified using single-locus tests were analyzed using the full two-locus model. Despite the penalty introduced by multiple testing, fitting the full two-locus model performed better than single-locus tests for many of the situations considered, particularly when compared with attempts to detect both individual loci. Using a two-stage strategy reduced the computational burden associated with performing an exhaustive two-locus search across the genome but was not as powerful as the exhaustive search when loci interacted. Two-stage approaches also increased the risk of missing interacting loci that contributed little effect at the margins. Based on our extensive simulations, our results suggest that an exhaustive search involving all pairwise combinations of markers across the genome might provide a useful complement to single-locus scans in identifying interacting loci that contribute to moderate proportions of the phenotypic variance.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticAllelesEpistasis, GeneticGene FrequencyGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome, HumanHumansQuantitative Trait, Heritable

Identifiers

PMID17002500
PMCPMC1570380
OpenAlexW2090713084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.