Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25417853›Full record

ArticleGenetic epidemiology2015

Fine-mapping additive and dominant SNP effects using group-LASSO and fractional resample model averaging.

Jeremy Sabourin, Andrew B Nobel, William Valdar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. An approximate Bayesian significance test for genomic evaluations.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2018
    Article
  10. Bayesian Diallel Analysis RevealsG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Jeremy SabourinDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Andrew B Nobel
William Valdar

Funding

Systems approaches to link tissue-specific expression to diseaseR01MH101819 · NIMH · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI NOBEL, ANDREW B, WRIGHT, FRED A. · 2013 to 2015
$1.3M
Statistical Modeling of Complex Traits in Genetic Reference Super-PopulationsR01GM104125 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI VALDAR, WILLIAM · 2012 to 2016
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM104125NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM104125NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101819NIMH NIH HHS R01MH101819
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomewide association studies (GWAS) sometimes identify loci at which both the number and identities of the underlying causal variants are ambiguous. In such cases, statistical methods that model effects of multiple single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) simultaneously can help disentangle the observed patterns of association and provide information about how those SNPs could be prioritized for follow-up studies. Current multi-SNP methods, however, tend to assume that SNP effects are well captured by additive genetics; yet when genetic dominance is present, this assumption translates to reduced power and faulty prioritizations. We describe a statistical procedure for prioritizing SNPs at GWAS loci that efficiently models both additive and dominance effects. Our method, LLARRMA-dawg, combines a group LASSO procedure for sparse modeling of multiple SNP effects with a resampling procedure based on fractional observation weights. It estimates for each SNP the robustness of association with the phenotype both to sampling variation and to competing explanations from other SNPs. In producing an SNP prioritization that best identifies underlying true signals, we show the following: our method easily outperforms a single-marker analysis; when additive-only signals are present, our joint model for additive and dominance is equivalent to or only slightly less powerful than modeling additive-only effects; and when dominance signals are present, even in combination with substantial additive effects, our joint model is unequivocally more powerful than a model assuming additivity. We also describe how performance can be improved through calibrated randomized penalization, and discuss how dominance in ungenotyped SNPs can be incorporated through either heterozygote dosage or multiple imputation.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticGenes, DominantGenetic LociGenome-Wide Association StudyHeterozygoteHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideROC CurvedominanceGWASmodel averagingSNP prioritizationvariable selection

Identifiers

PMID25417853
PMCPMC4314429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.