ArticleAnnals of human genetics2010
Identification of interacting genes in genome-wide association studies using a model-based two-stage approach.
Article in Annals of human genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond single-marker analyses: mining whole genome scans for insights into treatment responses in severe sepsis.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2013Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a two-stage approach based on 17 biologically plausible models to search for two-locus combinations that have significant joint effects on the disease status in genome-wide association (GWA) studies. In the two-stage analyses, we only test two-locus joint effects of SNPs that show modest marginal effects. We use simulation studies to compare the power of our two-stage analysis with a single-marker analysis and a two-stage analysis by using a full model. We find that for most plausible interaction effects, our two-stage analysis can dramatically increase the power to identify two-locus joint effects compared to a single-marker analysis and a two-stage analysis based on the full model. We also compare two-stage methods with one-stage methods. Our simulation results indicate that two-stage methods are more powerful than one-stage methods. We applied our two-stage approach to a GWA study for identifying genetic factors that might be relevant in the pathogenesis of sporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Our proposed two-stage approach found that two SNPs have significant joint effect on sporadic ALS while the single-marker analysis and the two-stage analysis based on the full model did not find any significant results.
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.