Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887572›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2015

Relative performance of gene- and pathway-level methods as secondary analyses for genome-wide association studies.

Genevieve L Wojcik, W H Linda Kao, Priya Duggal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Novel Gene and Network Associations Found for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Using Case-Control and Family-Based Studies in Multiethnic Populations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Genevieve L WojcikDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. gwojcik@stanford.edu.
W H Linda KaoDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. wkao@jhsph.edu.
Priya DuggalDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. pduggal@jhu.edu.

Funding

PHS HHS EYE02-1531Wellcome Trust 076113Wellcome Trust 085475Wellcome Trust 090355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the success of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), there still remains "missing heritability" for many traits. One contributing factor may be the result of examining one marker at a time as opposed to a group of markers that are biologically meaningful in aggregate. To address this problem, a variety of gene- and pathway-level methods have been developed to identify putative biologically relevant associations. A simulation was conducted to systematically assess the performance of these methods. Using genetic data from 4,500 individuals in the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC), case-control status was simulated based on an additive polygenic model. We evaluated gene-level methods based on their sensitivity, specificity, and proportion of false positives. Pathway-level methods were evaluated on the relationship between proportion of causal genes within the pathway and the strength of association.

resultsThe gene-level methods had low sensitivity (20-63%), high specificity (89-100%), and low proportion of false positives (0.1-6%). The gene-level program VEGAS using only the top 10% of associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the gene had the highest sensitivity (28.6%) with less than 1% false positives. The performance of the pathway-level methods depended on their reliance upon asymptotic distributions or if significance was estimated in a competitive manner. The pathway-level programs GenGen, GSA-SNP and MAGENTA had the best performance while accounting for potential confounders.

conclusionsNovel genes and pathways can be identified using the gene and pathway-level methods. These methods may provide valuable insight into the "missing heritability" of traits and provide biological interpretations to GWAS findings.

Indexed as

GenesSignal TransductionCase-Control StudiesComputational BiologyGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25887572
PMCPMC4391470

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.