ArticleHuman heredity2010
Statistical tests of genetic association in the presence of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiological and clinicopathological findings in 15 fatal outbreaks of salmonellosis in dairy calves and virulence genes in the causative Salmonella enterica Typhimurium and Dublin strains.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- Selecting Genetic Variants and Interactions Associated with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Group LASSO Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Detecting a weak association by testing its multiple perturbations: a data mining approach.Scientific reports · 2014Article
- Detecting rare haplotype-environment interaction with logistic Bayesian LASSO.Genetic epidemiology · 2014Article
- Adaptive tests for detecting gene-gene and gene-environment interactions.Human heredity · 2011Article
- Powerful multi-marker association tests: unifying genomic distance-based regression and logistic regression.Genetic epidemiology · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile its importance is well recognized, it remains challenging to test genetic association in the presence of gene-gene (or gene-environment) interactions. A major technical difficulty lies in the fact that a general model of gene-gene interactions calls for the use of often a large number of parameters, leading to possibly reduced statistical power. An emerging theme of some recent work is to reduce the number of such parameters through dimension reduction. Wang et al. [2009] proposed such an approach based on the partial least squares (PLS) for dimension reduction. They compared their method with several others using simulated data, establishing that their PLS test performed best. Unfortunately, Wang et al. did not include in their evaluations several powerful tests just recently discovered for analyzing multiple SNPs in a candidate gene or region.
methodsIn this paper, we first extend these tests to the current context to detect gene-gene interactions in the presence of nuisance parameters, then compare these tests with the PLS test using the simulated data of Wang et al. [2009].
resultsIt is confirmed that some other tests can be more powerful than the PLS test, though there is no uniform winner. Some interesting, albeit not new, observations are also made: some of the new tests are more robust to the large number of parameters in a model and may thus perform well; on the other hand, even for a purely epistatic genetic model, some of the tests applied to a logistic main-effects model without any interaction terms may be superior to that based on a full model that explicitly accounts for gene-gene interactions.
conclusionThe proposed statistical tests are potentially useful in practice.
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.