ArticleHuman heredity2010
Evaluation of approaches to identify associated SNPs that explain the linkage evidence in nuclear families with affected siblings.
Article in Human heredity, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Follow-up of a major psychosis linkage site in 13q13-q14 reveals significant association in both case-control and family samples.Biological psychiatry · 2013Article
- Accounting for a quantitative trait locus for plasma triglyceride levels: utilization of variants in multiple genes.PloS one · 2012Article
- A method to detect single-nucleotide polymorphisms accounting for a linkage signal using covariate-based affected relative pair linkage analysis.BMC proceedings · 2011Article
- Family-based designs for genome-wide association studies.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Linkage analysis is often followed by association mapping to localize disease variants. In this paper, we evaluate approaches to determine how much of the observed linkage evidence, namely the identity-by-descent (IBD) sharing at the linkage peak, is explained by associated SNPs. We study several methods: Homozygote Sharing Tests (HST), Genotype Identity-by-Descent Sharing Test (GIST), and a permutation approach. We also propose a new approach, HSTMLB, combining HST and the Maximum Likelihood Binomial (MLB) linkage statistic. These methods can identify SNPs partially explaining the linkage peak, but only HST and HSTMLB can identify SNPs that do not fully explain the linkage evidence and be applied to multiple-SNPs. We contrast these methods with the association tests implemented in the software LAMP. In our simulations, GIST is more powerful at finding SNPs that partially explain the linkage peak, while HST and HSTMLB are equally powerful at identifying SNPs that do not fully explain the linkage peak. When applied to the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium data, HST and HSTMLB identify marker pairs that may fully explain the linkage peak on chromosome 6. In conclusion, HST and HSTMLB provide simple and flexible tools to identify SNPs that explain the IBD sharing at the linkage peak.
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.