ArticlePloS one2015
Robust Linear Models for Cis-eQTL Analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating selective signatures and Cis-eQTLs to prioritize candidate genes potentially related to milk production traits in dual-purpose cattle.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- A transcription-centric model of SNP-age interaction.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
- Quantile regression for challenging cases of eQTL mapping.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Article
- A machine learning-based algorithm used to estimate the physiological elongation of ocular axial length in myopic children.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2020Article
- Genome-wide interaction and pathway-based identification of key regulators in multiple myeloma.Communications biology · 2019Article
- Estimation of cis-eQTL effect sizes using a log of linear model.Biometrics · 2018Article
- Screening for interaction effects in gene expression data.PloS one · 2017Article
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
Expression Quantitative Trait Loci (eQTL) analysis enables characterisation of functional genetic variation influencing expression levels of individual genes. In outbread populations, including humans, eQTLs are commonly analysed using the conventional linear model, adjusting for relevant covariates, assuming an allelic dosage model and a Gaussian error term. However, gene expression data generally have noise that induces heavy-tailed errors relative to the Gaussian distribution and often include atypical observations, or outliers. Such departures from modelling assumptions can lead to an increased rate of type II errors (false negatives), and to some extent also type I errors (false positives). Careful model checking can reduce the risk of type-I errors but often not type II errors, since it is generally too time-consuming to carefully check all models with a non-significant effect in large-scale and genome-wide studies. Here we propose the application of a robust linear model for eQTL analysis to reduce adverse effects of deviations from the assumption of Gaussian residuals. We present results from a simulation study as well as results from the analysis of real eQTL data sets. Our findings suggest that in many situations robust models have the potential to provide more reliable eQTL results compared to conventional linear models, particularly in respect to reducing type II errors due to non-Gaussian noise. Post-genomic data, such as that generated in genome-wide eQTL studies, are often noisy and frequently contain atypical observations. Robust statistical models have the potential to provide more reliable results and increased statistical power under non-Gaussian conditions. The results presented here suggest that robust models should be considered routinely alongside other commonly used methodologies for eQTL analysis.
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.