Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21196521›Full record

SynthesisGenetics2011

A genetical genomics approach to genome scans increases power for QTL mapping.

Guoying Sun, Paul Schliekelman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guoying SunDepartment of Statistics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA.
Paul Schliekelman
University of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe a method for integrating gene expression information into genome scans and show that this can substantially increase the statistical power of QTL mapping. The method has three stages. First, standard clustering methods identify small (size 5-20) groups of genes with similar expression patterns. Second, each gene group is tested for a causative genetic locus shared with the clinical trait of interest. This is done using an EM algorithm approach that treats genotype at the putative causative locus as an unobserved variable and combines expression information from all of the genes in the group to infer genotype information at the locus. Finally, expression QTL (eQTL) are mapped for each gene group that shares a causative locus with the clinical trait. Such eQTL are candidates for the causative locus. Simulation results show that this method has far superior power to standard QTL mapping techniques in many circumstances. We applied this method to existing data on mouse obesity. Our method identified 27 putative body weight QTL, whereas standard QTL mapping produced only one. Furthermore, most gene groups with body weight QTL included cis genes, so candidate genes could be immediately identified. Eleven body weight QTL produced 16 candidate genes that have been previously associated with body weight or body weight-related traits, thus validating our method. In addition, 15 of the 16 other loci produced 32 candidate genes that have not been associated with body weight. Thus, this method shows great promise for finding new causative loci for complex traits.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAlgorithmsAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsChromosome MappingCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Regulatory NetworksGenomeGenotypeMiceMicroarray AnalysisPhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID21196521
PMCPMC3063683
OpenAlexW2125974912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.