ReviewFrontiers in genetics2013
Two-phase and family-based designs for next-generation sequencing studies.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Novel breast cancer susceptibility loci under linkage peaks identified in African ancestry consortia.Human molecular genetics · 2024Pooled it
- BICEP: Bayesian inference for rare genomic variant causality evaluation in pedigrees.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Computational Genomics in the Era of Precision Medicine: Applications to Variant Analysis and Gene Therapy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- What is the right sequencing approach? Solo VS extended family analysis in consanguineous populations.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
- Identification of novel sarcoma risk genes using a two-stage genome wide DNA sequencing strategy in cancer cluster families and population case and control cohorts.BMC medical genetics · 2019Article
- Two-phase designs for joint quantitative-trait-dependent and genotype-dependent sampling in post-GWAS regional sequencing.Genetic epidemiology · 2018Article
- Rare variant association test in family-based sequencing studies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2017Article
- GWASeq: targeted re-sequencing follow up to GWAS.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Assessing the effects of multiple markers in genetic association studies.Frontiers in genetics · 2015Article
- A statistical framework to guide sequencing choices in pedigrees.American journal of human genetics · 2014Article
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
The cost of next-generation sequencing is now approaching that of early GWAS panels, but is still out of reach for large epidemiologic studies and the millions of rare variants expected poses challenges for distinguishing causal from non-causal variants. We review two types of designs for sequencing studies: two-phase designs for targeted follow-up of genomewide association studies using unrelated individuals; and family-based designs exploiting co-segregation for prioritizing variants and genes. Two-phase designs subsample subjects for sequencing from a larger case-control study jointly on the basis of their disease and carrier status; the discovered variants are then tested for association in the parent study. The analysis combines the full sequence data from the substudy with the more limited SNP data from the main study. We discuss various methods for selecting this subset of variants and describe the expected yield of true positive associations in the context of an on-going study of second breast cancers following radiotherapy. While the sharing of variants within families means that family-based designs are less efficient for discovery than sequencing unrelated individuals, the ability to exploit co-segregation of variants with disease within families helps distinguish causal from non-causal ones. Furthermore, by enriching for family history, the yield of causal variants can be improved and use of identity-by-descent information improves imputation of genotypes for other family members. We compare the relative efficiency of these designs with those using unrelated individuals for discovering and prioritizing variants or genes for testing association in larger studies. While associations can be tested with single variants, power is low for rare ones. Recent generalizations of burden or kernel tests for gene-level associations to family-based data are appealing. These approaches are illustrated in the context of a family-based study of colorectal cancer.
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.