Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26544803›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2015

Two-Variance-Component Model Improves Genetic Prediction in Family Datasets.

George Tucker, Po-Ru Loh, Iona M MacLeod, Ben J Hayes, Michael E Goddard, Bonnie Berger, Alkes L Price

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Trade-offs of Linear Mixed Models in Genome-Wide Association Studies.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Efficient Estimation and Applications of Cross-Validated Genetic Predictions to Polygenic Risk Scores and Linear Mixed Models.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

George TuckerDepartment of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Po-Ru LohDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Iona M MacLeodFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia.
Ben J HayesDairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia; BioSciences Research Division, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia; Biosciences Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia.
Michael E GoddardFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; BioSciences Research Division, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia.
Bonnie BergerDepartment of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Alkes L PriceDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: aprice@hsph.harvard.edu.

Funding

Methods for Genome-wide Association Studies in Admixed PopulationsR01HG006399 · NHGRI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI PRICE, ALKES L · 2011 to 2024
$6.3M
Compressive genomics for large omics data sets: Algorithms applications & toolsR01GM108348 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BERGER, BONNIE · 2013 to 2019
$2.1M
Improving Polygenic Prediction using Next-Generation Data SetsR01GM105857 · NIGMS · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SUNYAEV, SHAMIL · 2014 to 2017
$2.0M
Fast and powerful extensions of mixed model methods for GWASF32HG007805 · NHGRI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LOH, PO-RU · 2014 to 2017
$150k
NHGRI NIH HHS F32 HG007805NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006399NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105857NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM108348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic prediction based on either identity by state (IBS) sharing or pedigree information has been investigated extensively with best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) methods. Such methods were pioneered in plant and animal-breeding literature and have since been applied to predict human traits, with the aim of eventual clinical utility. However, methods to combine IBS sharing and pedigree information for genetic prediction in humans have not been explored. We introduce a two-variance-component model for genetic prediction: one component for IBS sharing and one for approximate pedigree structure, both estimated with genetic markers. In simulations using real genotypes from the Candidate-gene Association Resource (CARe) and Framingham Heart Study (FHS) family cohorts, we demonstrate that the two-variance-component model achieves gains in prediction r(2) over standard BLUP at current sample sizes, and we project, based on simulations, that these gains will continue to hold at larger sample sizes. Accordingly, in analyses of four quantitative phenotypes from CARe and two quantitative phenotypes from FHS, the two-variance-component model significantly improves prediction r(2) in each case, with up to a 20% relative improvement. We also find that standard mixed-model association tests can produce inflated test statistics in datasets with related individuals, whereas the two-variance-component model corrects for inflation.

Indexed as

Genetic MarkersGenome-Wide Association StudyModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalQuantitative Trait LociCardiovascular DiseasesComputer SimulationDatasets as TopicFamilyGenetic Association StudiesGenomicsHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrincipal Component AnalysisSelection, GeneticGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID26544803
PMCPMC4667134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.