SynthesisPloS one2015
Gene-gene and gene-environment interactions in meta-analysis of genetic association studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategy to Estimate Sample Sizes to Justify the Association between MMP1 SNP and Osteoarthritis.Genes · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Gene-by-environment interactions in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2019Review
- Association between angiotensin II receptor type 1 A1166C polymorphism and chronic kidney disease.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Angiotensin II receptor type 1 A1166C modifies the association between angiotensinogen M235T and chronic kidney disease.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Analysis of SNP-SNP interactions and bone quantitative ultrasound parameter in early adulthood.BMC medical genetics · 2017Article
- Using Linkage Analysis to Detect Gene-Gene Interactions. 2. Improved Reliability and Extension to More-Complex Models.PloS one · 2016Article
- Epistasis Test in Meta-Analysis: A Multi-Parameter Markov Chain Monte Carlo Model for Consistency of Evidence.PloS one · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extensive genetic studies have identified a large number of causal genetic variations in many human phenotypes; however, these could not completely explain heritability in complex diseases. Some researchers have proposed that the "missing heritability" may be attributable to gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Because there are billions of potential interaction combinations, the statistical power of a single study is often ineffective in detecting these interactions. Meta-analysis is a common method of increasing detection power; however, accessing individual data could be difficult. This study presents a simple method that employs aggregated summary values from a "case" group to detect these specific interactions that based on rare disease and independence assumptions. However, these assumptions, particularly the rare disease assumption, may be violated in real situations; therefore, this study further investigated the robustness of our proposed method when it violates the assumptions. In conclusion, we observed that the rare disease assumption is relatively nonessential, whereas the independence assumption is an essential component. Because single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are often unrelated to environmental factors and SNPs on other chromosomes, researchers should use this method to investigate gene-gene and gene-environment interactions when they are unable to obtain detailed individual patient data.
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.