Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22252406›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2012

UPDG: utilities package for data analysis of pooled DNA GWAS.

Daniel W H Ho, Maurice K H Yap, Shea Ping Yip

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2012. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

3 authors.

Daniel W H HoCentre for Myopia Research, School of Optometry, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Maurice K H Yap
Shea Ping Yip

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite being a well-established strategy for cost reduction in disease gene mapping, pooled DNA association study is much less popular than the individual DNA approach. This situation is especially true for pooled DNA genomewide association study (GWAS), for which very few computer resources have been developed for its data analysis. This motivates the development of UPDG (Utilities package for data analysis of Pooled DNA GWAS).

resultsUPDG represents a generalized framework for data analysis of pooled DNA GWAS with the integration of Unix/Linux shell operations, Perl programs and R scripts. With the input of raw intensity data from GWAS, UPDG performs the following tasks in a stepwise manner: raw data manipulation, correction for allelic preferential amplification, normalization, nested analysis of variance for genetic association testing, and summarization of analysis results. Detailed instructions, procedures and commands are provided in the comprehensive user manual describing the whole process from preliminary preparation of software installation to final outcome acquisition. An example dataset (input files and sample output files) is also included in the package so that users can easily familiarize themselves with the data file formats, working procedures and expected output. Therefore, UPDG is especially useful for users with some computer knowledge, but without a sophisticated programming background.

conclusionsUPDG provides a free, simple and platform-independent one-stop service to scientists working on pooled DNA GWAS data analysis, but with less advanced programming knowledge. It is our vision and mission to reduce the hindrance for performing data analysis of pooled DNA GWAS through our contribution of UPDG. More importantly, we hope to promote the popularity of pooled DNA GWAS, which is a very useful research strategy.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudySoftwareHumansStatistics as TopicUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID22252406
PMCPMC3293712

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.