ArticlePLoS genetics2012
Improved statistics for genome-wide interaction analysis.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Detecting fitness epistasis in recently admixed populations with genome-wide data.BMC genomics · 2020Pooled it
- A genome-wide search for common SNP x SNP interactions on the risk of venous thrombosis.BMC medical genetics · 2013Pooled it
- Ultrafast genome-wide scan for SNP-SNP interactions in common complex disease.Genome research · 2012Pooled it
- Integrating Epistatic Interactions into Genomic Prediction of Growth and Fillet Fat Content in Common Carp.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Multiple genomic approaches reveal geographic structure and local selection signals in invasive Anopheles stephensi from the Horn of Africa and Yemen.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- On the analysis of genetic association with long-read sequencing data.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Genome-wide epistasis analysis reveals significant epistatic signals associated with Parkinson's disease risk.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Epistasis regulates genetic control of cardiac hypertrophy.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- Deciphering epistatic genetic regulation of cardiac hypertrophy.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Identifying X-chromosome variants associated with age-related macular degeneration.Human molecular genetics · 2024Article
- BridGE: a pathway-based analysis tool for detecting genetic interactions from GWAS.Nature protocols · 2024Review
- Poor statistical power in population-based association study of gene interaction.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Article
- Epistasis regulates genetic control of cardiac hypertrophy.Research square · 2023Article
- A multi-threaded approach to genotype pattern mining for detecting digenic disease genes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Genetic Dissection of Epistatic Interactions Contributing Yield-Related Agronomic Traits in Rice Using the Compressed Mixed Model.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Detecting genetic epistasis by differential departure from independence.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2022Article
- Genome-wide approaches delineate the additive, epistatic, and pleiotropic nature of variants controlling fatty acid composition in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.).G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Evaluating the detection ability of a range of epistasis detection methods on simulated data for pure and impure epistatic models.PloS one · 2022Article
- Negative linkage disequilibrium between amino acid changing variants reveals interference among deleterious mutations in the human genome.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, Wu and colleagues [1] proposed two novel statistics for genome-wide interaction analysis using case/control or case-only data. In computer simulations, their proposed case/control statistic outperformed competing approaches, including the fast-epistasis option in PLINK and logistic regression analysis under the correct model; however, reasons for its superior performance were not fully explored. Here we investigate the theoretical properties and performance of Wu et al.'s proposed statistics and explain why, in some circumstances, they outperform competing approaches. Unfortunately, we find minor errors in the formulae for their statistics, resulting in tests that have higher than nominal type 1 error. We also find minor errors in PLINK's fast-epistasis and case-only statistics, although theory and simulations suggest that these errors have only negligible effect on type 1 error. We propose adjusted versions of all four statistics that, both theoretically and in computer simulations, maintain correct type 1 error rates under the null hypothesis. We also investigate statistics based on correlation coefficients that maintain similar control of type 1 error. Although designed to test specifically for interaction, we show that some of these previously-proposed statistics can, in fact, be sensitive to main effects at one or both loci, particularly in the presence of linkage disequilibrium. We propose two new "joint effects" statistics that, provided the disease is rare, are sensitive only to genuine interaction effects. In computer simulations we find, in most situations considered, that highest power is achieved by analysis under the correct genetic model. Such an analysis is unachievable in practice, as we do not know this model. However, generally high power over a wide range of scenarios is exhibited by our joint effects and adjusted Wu statistics. We recommend use of these alternative or adjusted statistics and urge caution when using Wu et al.'s originally-proposed statistics, on account of the inflated error rate that can result.
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.