ArticlePLoS genetics2008
Calibrating the performance of SNP arrays for whole-genome association studies.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the reproducibility of asthma candidate gene associations, using genome-wide data.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2009Trial
- Single nucleotide alterations in MicroRNAs and human cancer-A not fully explored field.Non-coding RNA research · 2020Review
- High-Throughput Characterization of Blood Serum Proteomics of IBD Patients with Respect to Aging and Genetic Factors.PLoS genetics · 2017Article
- Coverage and efficiency in current SNP chips.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014Article
- Comparison of the performance of two commercial genome-wide association study genotyping platforms in Han Chinese samples.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2013Article
- Evaluating the effective numbers of independent tests and significant p-value thresholds in commercial genotyping arrays and public imputation reference datasets.Human genetics · 2012Article
- Efficiency and power as a function of sequence coverage, SNP array density, and imputation.PLoS computational biology · 2012Article
- Lung eQTLs to help reveal the molecular underpinnings of asthma.PLoS genetics · 2012Article
- Article
- Systems genetics, bioinformatics and eQTL mapping.Genetica · 2010Review
- Genomic insights into early-onset obesity.Genome medicine · 2010Article
- Architecture of inherited susceptibility to common cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2010Review
- Assessing the prospects of genome-wide association studies performed in inbred mice.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2010Article
- Magnitude of stratification in human populations and impacts on genome wide association studies.PloS one · 2010Article
- Ecogenomics of respiratory diseases of public health significance.Annual review of public health · 2010Review
- Methodological Issues in Multistage Genome-wide Association Studies.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2009Article
- Accuracy of genome-wide imputation of untyped markers and impacts on statistical power for association studies.BMC genetics · 2009Article
- Designing genome-wide association studies: sample size, power, imputation, and the choice of genotyping chip.PLoS genetics · 2009Article
- Overview of electrochemical DNA biosensors: new approaches to detect the expression of life.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2009Article
- Glutamate Neurotransmission in Psychotic Disorders and Substance Abuse.The open psychiatry journal · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To facilitate whole-genome association studies (WGAS), several high-density SNP genotyping arrays have been developed. Genetic coverage and statistical power are the primary benchmark metrics in evaluating the performance of SNP arrays. Ideally, such evaluations would be done on a SNP set and a cohort of individuals that are both independently sampled from the original SNPs and individuals used in developing the arrays. Without utilization of an independent test set, previous estimates of genetic coverage and statistical power may be subject to an overfitting bias. Additionally, the SNP arrays' statistical power in WGAS has not been systematically assessed on real traits. One robust setting for doing so is to evaluate statistical power on thousands of traits measured from a single set of individuals. In this study, 359 newly sampled Americans of European descent were genotyped using both Affymetrix 500K (Affx500K) and Illumina 650Y (Ilmn650K) SNP arrays. From these data, we were able to obtain estimates of genetic coverage, which are robust to overfitting, by constructing an independent test set from among these genotypes and individuals. Furthermore, we collected liver tissue RNA from the participants and profiled these samples on a comprehensive gene expression microarray. The RNA levels were used as a large-scale set of quantitative traits to calibrate the relative statistical power of the commercial arrays. Our genetic coverage estimates are lower than previous reports, providing evidence that previous estimates may be inflated due to overfitting. The Ilmn650K platform showed reasonable power (50% or greater) to detect SNPs associated with quantitative traits when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is greater than or equal to 0.5 and the causal SNP's minor allele frequency (MAF) is greater than or equal to 20% (N = 359). In testing each of the more than 40,000 gene expression traits for association to each of the SNPs on the Ilmn650K and Affx500K arrays, we found that the Ilmn650K yielded 15% times more discoveries than the Affx500K at the same false discovery rate (FDR) level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.