ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009
Comparison of automated candidate gene prediction systems using genes implicated in type 2 diabetes by genome-wide association studies.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of susceptible genes and chromosome loci for lung cancers by automated gene prediction tools and genome scanning meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015Pooled it
- Transcriptomic profile of leg muscle during early growth and development in Haiyang yellow chicken.Archives animal breeding · 2021Article
- Transcriptome profile analysis of leg muscle tissues between slow- and fast-growing chickens.PloS one · 2018Article
- Identification of novel therapeutics for complex diseases from genome-wide association data.BMC medical genomics · 2014Article
- Candidate disease gene prediction using Gentrepid: application to a genome-wide association study on coronary artery disease.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2014Article
- Gentrepid V2.0: a web server for candidate disease gene prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Computational tools for prioritizing candidate genes: boosting disease gene discovery.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2012Review
- Prioritization of candidate genes for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by computational analysis of multiple data sources.Protein & cell · 2012Article
- Article
- Analyses of copy number variation of GK rat reveal new putative type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci.PloS one · 2010Article
- Outcome of array CGH analysis for 255 subjects with intellectual disability and search for candidate genes using bioinformatics.Human genetics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated candidate gene prediction systems allow geneticists to hone in on disease genes more rapidly by identifying the most probable candidate genes linked to the disease phenotypes under investigation. Here we assessed the ability of eight different candidate gene prediction systems to predict disease genes in intervals previously associated with type 2 diabetes by benchmarking their performance against genes implicated by recent genome-wide association studies.
resultsUsing a search space of 9556 genes, all but one of the systems pruned the genome in favour of genes associated with moderate to highly significant SNPs. Of the 11 genes associated with highly significant SNPs identified by the genome-wide association studies, eight were flagged as likely candidates by at least one of the prediction systems. A list of candidates produced by a previous consensus approach did not match any of the genes implicated by 706 moderate to highly significant SNPs flagged by the genome-wide association studies. We prioritized genes associated with medium significance SNPs.
conclusionThe study appraises the relative success of several candidate gene prediction systems against independent genetic data. Even when confronted with challengingly large intervals, the candidate gene prediction systems can successfully select likely disease genes. Furthermore, they can be used to filter statistically less-well-supported genetic data to select more likely candidates. We suggest consensus approaches fail because they penalize novel predictions made from independent underlying databases. To realize their full potential further work needs to be done on prioritization and annotation of genes.
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.