ArticleGenetic epidemiology2020
Combining sequence data from multiple studies: Impact of analysis strategies on rare variant calling and association results.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-ancestry exome-wide study identifies variants associated with Alzheimer's disease protection.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individual sequencing studies often have limited sample sizes and so limited power to detect trait associations with rare variants. A common strategy is to aggregate data from multiple studies. For studying rare variants, jointly calling all samples together is the gold standard strategy but can be difficult to implement due to privacy restrictions and computational burden. Here, we compare joint calling to the alternative of single-study calling in terms of variant detection sensitivity and genotype accuracy as a function of sequencing coverage and assess their impact on downstream association analysis. To do so, we analyze deep-coverage (~82×) exome and low-coverage (~5×) genome sequence data on 2,250 individuals from the Genetics of Type 2 Diabetes study jointly and separately within five geographic cohorts. For rare single nucleotide variants (SNVs): (a) ≥97% of discovered SNVs are found by both calling strategies; (b) nonreference concordance with a set of highly accurate genotypes is ≥99% for both calling strategies; (c) meta-analysis has similar power to joint analysis in deep-coverage sequence data but can be less powerful in low-coverage sequence data. Given similar data processing and quality control steps, we recommend single-study calling as a viable alternative to joint calling for analyzing SNVs of all minor allele frequency in deep-coverage 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.