ArticlePloS one2011
Multilocus association testing of quantitative traits based on partial least-squares analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome-wide association analysis and accuracy of genome-enabled breeding value predictions for resistance to infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in a commercial rainbow trout breeding population.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- Genome-wide mapping of quantitative trait loci in admixed populations using mixed linear model and Bayesian multiple regression analysis.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Prediction and association mapping of agronomic traits in maize using multiple omic data.Heredity · 2017Article
- Detecting Gene-Gene Interactions Associated with Multiple Complex Traits with U-Statistics.Current genomics · 2016Article
- Assessing multivariate gene-metabolome associations with rare variants using Bayesian reduced rank regression.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
- Applying genome-wide gene-based expression quantitative trait locus mapping to study population ancestry and pharmacogenetics.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Article
- A comparison of gene region simulation methods.PloS one · 2012Article
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
Because of combining the genetic information of multiple loci, multilocus association studies (MLAS) are expected to be more powerful than single locus association studies (SLAS) in disease genes mapping. However, some researchers found that MLAS had similar or reduced power relative to SLAS, which was partly attributed to the increased degrees of freedom (dfs) in MLAS. Based on partial least-squares (PLS) analysis, we develop a MLAS approach, while avoiding large dfs in MLAS. In this approach, genotypes are first decomposed into the PLS components that not only capture majority of the genetic information of multiple loci, but also are relevant for target traits. The extracted PLS components are then regressed on target traits to detect association under multilinear regression. Simulation study based on real data from the HapMap project were used to assess the performance of our PLS-based MLAS as well as other popular multilinear regression-based MLAS approaches under various scenarios, considering genetic effects and linkage disequilibrium structure of candidate genetic regions. Using PLS-based MLAS approach, we conducted a genome-wide MLAS of lean body mass, and compared it with our previous genome-wide SLAS of lean body mass. Simulations and real data analyses results support the improved power of our PLS-based MLAS in disease genes mapping relative to other three MLAS approaches investigated in this study. We aim to provide an effective and powerful MLAS approach, which may help to overcome the limitations of SLAS in disease genes mapping.
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.