Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20018093›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2009

Comparing gene set analysis methods on single-nucleotide polymorphism data from Genetic Analysis Workshop 16.

Nathan L Tintle, Bryce Borchers, Marshall Brown, Airat Bekmetjev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Global impact of micronutrients in modern human evolution.American journal of human genetics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Signatures of Positive Selection in the Genome ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The statistical properties of gene-set analysis.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Nathan L TintleDepartment of Mathematics, Hope College, 27 Graves Place, Holland, Michigan 49423, USA. tintle@hope.edu.
Bryce Borchers
Marshall Brown
Airat Bekmetjev

Funding

GENETIC ANALYSIS OF COMMON DISEASES: AN EVALUATIONR01GM031575 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY · PI ALMASY, LAURA A. · 1985 to 2016
$7.8M
Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Sample Designs for Genetic AssocR15HG004543 · NHGRI · HOPE COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2008 to 2011
$288k
NHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG004543NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM031575
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, gene set analysis (GSA) has been extended from use on gene expression data to use on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data in genome-wide association studies. When GSA has been demonstrated on SNP data, two popular statistics from gene expression data analysis (gene set enrichment analysis [GSEA] and Fisher's exact test [FET]) have been used. However, GSEA and FET have shown a lack of power and robustness in the analysis of gene expression data. The purpose of this work is to investigate whether the same issues are also true for the analysis of SNP data. Ultimately, we conclude that GSEA and FET are not optimal for the analysis of SNP data when compared with the SUMSTAT method. In analysis of real SNP data from the Framingham Heart Study, we find that SUMSTAT finds many more gene sets to be significant when compared with other methods. In an analysis of simulated data, SUMSTAT demonstrates high power and better control of the type I error rate. GSA is a promising approach to the analysis of SNP data in GWAS and use of the SUMSTAT statistic instead of GSEA or FET may increase power and robustness.

Identifiers

PMID20018093
PMCPMC2796000

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.