Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27412875›Full record

ArticleJournal of human genetics2016

Block-based association tests for rare variants using Kullback-Leibler divergence.

Degang Zhu, Yue-Qing Hu, Shili Lin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Degang ZhuDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China.
Yue-Qing HuInstitute of Biostatistics, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shili LinDepartment of Statistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although genome-wide association studies have successfully detected numerous associations between common variants and complex diseases, these variants typically can only explain a small part of the heritable component of a disease. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, attention has turned to rare variants. Recently, a variety of approaches for detecting associations of rare variants have been proposed, including the Kullback-Leibler divergence-based tests (KLTs) for detecting genotypic differences between cases and controls. However, few of these approaches consider linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure among rare variants and common variants. In this study, we propose two block-based association tests for testing the effects of rare variants on a disease. The main idea for this approach comes from the hypothesis that a region of interest may consist of two or more LD blocks such that single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) within each block are correlated, whereas SNVs in different blocks are independent or weakly correlated. Under this hypothesis, we propose two tests that are generalizations of the KLTs by taking the block structure into account. A simulation study under various scenarios shows that the proposed methods have well-controlled type I error rates and outperform some leading methods in the literature. Moreover, application to the Dallas Heart Study data demonstrates the feasibility and performance of the two proposed methods in a realistic setting.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationModels, GeneticAlgorithmsComputer SimulationDatasets as TopicGenetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansLinkage DisequilibriumPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID27412875

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.