Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25033443›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2014

Comparison of methods to account for relatedness in genome-wide association studies with family-based data.

Jakris Eu-Ahsunthornwattana, E Nancy Miller, Michaela Fakiola, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2, Selma M B Jeronimo, Jenefer M Blackwell, Heather J Cordell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Natural variation links seedling hypocotyl growth with water loss in Arabidopsis.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Jakris Eu-AhsunthornwattanaInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom; Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Ratchathevi, Bangkok, Thailand.
E Nancy MillerCambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Michaela FakiolaCambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2
Selma M B JeronimoDepartment of Biochemistry, Center for Biosciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.
Jenefer M BlackwellCambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Centre for Child Health Research, The University of Western Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia.
Heather J CordellInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBCentre for Life · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte · BR

Funding

Wellcome Trust 087436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approaches based on linear mixed models (LMMs) have recently gained popularity for modelling population substructure and relatedness in genome-wide association studies. In the last few years, a bewildering variety of different LMM methods/software packages have been developed, but it is not always clear how (or indeed whether) any newly-proposed method differs from previously-proposed implementations. Here we compare the performance of several LMM approaches (and software implementations, including EMMAX, GenABEL, FaST-LMM, Mendel, GEMMA and MMM) via their application to a genome-wide association study of visceral leishmaniasis in 348 Brazilian families comprising 3626 individuals (1972 genotyped). The implementations differ in precise details of methodology implemented and through various user-chosen options such as the method and number of SNPs used to estimate the kinship (relatedness) matrix. We investigate sensitivity to these choices and the success (or otherwise) of the approaches in controlling the overall genome-wide error-rate for both real and simulated phenotypes. We compare the LMM results to those obtained using traditional family-based association tests (based on transmission of alleles within pedigrees) and to alternative approaches implemented in the software packages MQLS, ROADTRIPS and MASTOR. We find strong concordance between the results from different LMM approaches, and all are successful in controlling the genome-wide error rate (except for some approaches when applied naively to longitudinal data with many repeated measures). We also find high correlation between LMMs and alternative approaches (apart from transmission-based approaches when applied to SNPs with small or non-existent effects). We conclude that LMM approaches perform well in comparison to competing approaches. Given their strong concordance, in most applications, the choice of precise LMM implementation cannot be based on power/type I error considerations but must instead be based on considerations such as speed and ease-of-use.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyLinear ModelsModels, TheoreticalBrazilHumansLeishmaniasis, VisceralPedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSoftware

Identifiers

PMID25033443
PMCPMC4102448
OpenAlexW1971298736

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.