Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22373429›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2011

Evaluating methods for combining rare variant data in pathway-based tests of genetic association.

Ashley Petersen, Alexandra Sitarik, Alexander Luedtke, Scott Powers, Airat Bekmetjev, Nathan L Tintle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Pathway analysis with next-generation sequencing data.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Ashley Petersen *Departments of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics, St. Olaf College, 1520 St. Olaf Avenue, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.
Alexandra Sitarik *Department of Mathematics, Wittenberg University, 200 West Ward Street, Springfield, OH 45501, USA.
Alexander LuedtkeDivision of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 151 Thayer Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
Scott PowersDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, University of North Carolina, 318 Hanes Hall, CB 3260, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3260, USA.
Airat BekmetjevDepartment of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Dordt College, 498 4th Ave. NE, Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA.
Nathan L TintleDepartment of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Dordt College, 498 4th Ave. NE, Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA.

Funding

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 HG004543
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analyzing sets of genes in genome-wide association studies is a relatively new approach that aims to capitalize on biological knowledge about the interactions of genes in biological pathways. This approach, called pathway analysis or gene set analysis, has not yet been applied to the analysis of rare variants. Applying pathway analysis to rare variants offers two competing approaches. In the first approach rare variant statistics are used to generate p-values for each gene (e.g., combined multivariate collapsing [CMC] or weighted-sum [WS]) and the gene-level p-values are combined using standard pathway analysis methods (e.g., gene set enrichment analysis or Fisher's combined probability method). In the second approach, rare variant methods (e.g., CMC and WS) are applied directly to sets of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) representing all SNPs within genes in a pathway. In this paper we use simulated phenotype and real next-generation sequencing data from Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 to analyze sets of rare variants using these two competing approaches. The initial results suggest substantial differences in the methods, with Fisher's combined probability method and the direct application of the WS method yielding the best power. Evidence suggests that the WS method works well in most situations, although Fisher's method was more likely to be optimal when the number of causal SNPs in the set was low but the risk of the causal SNPs was high.

Identifiers

PMID22373429
PMCPMC3287885

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.