ReviewPLoS genetics2016
The Increasing Importance of Gene-Based Analyses.
Review in PLoS genetics, 2016. 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.
- MIRAGE: A Bayesian statistical method for gene-level rare-variant analysis incorporating functional annotations.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- HLA allele-calling using multi-ancestry whole-exome sequencing from the UK Biobank identifies 129 novel associations in 11 autoimmune diseases.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Exome-wide association study to identify rare variants influencing COVID-19 outcomes: Results from the Host Genetics Initiative.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- High-quality bacterial genomes of a partial-nitritation/anammox system by an iterative hybrid assembly method.Microbiome · 2020Article
- Analysis of 51 proposed hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genes from genome sequencing data in sarcomere negative cases has negligible diagnostic yield.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Gene-based evaluation of low-frequency variation and genetically-predicted gene expression impacting risk of keloid formation.Annals of human genetics · 2018Article
- Comparison of gene-based rare variant association mapping methods for quantitative traits in a bovine population with complex familial relationships.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, genome and exome sequencing studies have implicated a plethora of new disease genes with rare causal variants. Here, I review 150 exome sequencing studies that claim to have discovered that a disease can be caused by different rare variants in the same gene, and I determine whether their methods followed the current best-practice guidelines in the interpretation of their data. Specifically, I assess whether studies appropriately assess controls for rare variants throughout the entire gene or implicated region as opposed to only investigating the specific rare variants identified in the cases, and I assess whether studies present sufficient co-segregation data for statistically significant linkage. I find that the proportion of studies performing gene-based analyses has increased with time, but that even in 2015 fewer than 40% of the reviewed studies used this method, and only 10% presented statistically significant co-segregation data. Furthermore, I find that the genes reported in these papers are explaining a decreasing proportion of cases as the field moves past most of the low-hanging fruit, with 50% of the genes from studies in 2014 and 2015 having variants in fewer than 5% of cases. As more studies focus on genes explaining relatively few cases, the importance of performing appropriate gene-based analyses is increasing. It is becoming increasingly important for journal editors and reviewers to require stringent gene-based evidence to avoid an avalanche of misleading disease gene discovery papers.
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.