Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18533027›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2008

Worldwide population differentiation at disease-associated SNPs.

Sean Myles, Dan Davison, Jeffrey Barrett, Mark Stoneking, Nic Timpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Deletions inCell reports. Medicine · 2021
    Article
  13. Leveraging genetic ancestry to study health disparities.American journal of physical anthropology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antagonistic Pleiotropy in Human Disease.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020
    Review

34 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

5 authors.

Sean MylesDepartment of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. smm367@cornell.edu
Dan Davison
Jeffrey Barrett
Mark Stoneking
Nic Timpson

Funding

Medical Research Council G0600705Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent genome-wide association (GWA) studies have provided compelling evidence of association between genetic variants and common complex diseases. These studies have made use of cases and controls almost exclusively from populations of European ancestry and little is known about the frequency of risk alleles in other populations. The present study addresses the transferability of disease associations across human populations by examining levels of population differentiation at disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

methodsWe genotyped ~1000 individuals from 53 populations worldwide at 25 SNPs which show robust association with 6 complex human diseases (Crohn's disease, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, coronary artery disease and obesity). Allele frequency differences between populations for these SNPs were measured using Fst. The Fst values for the disease-associated SNPs were compared to Fst values from 2750 random SNPs typed in the same set of individuals.

resultsOn average, disease SNPs are not significantly more differentiated between populations than random SNPs in the genome. Risk allele frequencies, however, do show substantial variation across human populations and may contribute to differences in disease prevalence between populations. We demonstrate that, in some cases, risk allele frequency differences are unusually high compared to random SNPs and may be due to the action of local (i.e. geographically-restricted) positive natural selection. Moreover, some risk alleles were absent or fixed in a population, which implies that risk alleles identified in one population do not necessarily account for disease prevalence in all human populations.

conclusionAlthough differences in risk allele frequencies between human populations are not unusually large and are thus likely not due to positive local selection, there is substantial variation in risk allele frequencies between populations which may account for differences in disease prevalence between human populations.

Identifiers

PMID18533027
PMCPMC2440747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.