↓ Skip to main content

An efficient algorithm to perform multiple testing in epistasis screening

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An efficient algorithm to perform multiple testing in epistasis screening
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-138
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Van Lishout, Jestinah M Mahachie John, Elena S Gusareva, Victor Urrea, Isabelle Cleynen, Emilie Théâtre, Benoît Charloteaux, Malu Luz Calle, Louis Wehenkel, Kristel Van Steen

Abstract

Research in epistasis or gene-gene interaction detection for human complex traits has grown over the last few years. It has been marked by promising methodological developments, improved translation efforts of statistical epistasis to biological epistasis and attempts to integrate different omics information sources into the epistasis screening to enhance power. The quest for gene-gene interactions poses severe multiple-testing problems. In this context, the maxT algorithm is one technique to control the false-positive rate. However, the memory needed by this algorithm rises linearly with the amount of hypothesis tests. Gene-gene interaction studies will require a memory proportional to the squared number of SNPs. A genome-wide epistasis search would therefore require terabytes of memory. Hence, cache problems are likely to occur, increasing the computation time. In this work we present a new version of maxT, requiring an amount of memory independent from the number of genetic effects to be investigated. This algorithm was implemented in C++ in our epistasis screening software MBMDR-3.0.3. We evaluate the new implementation in terms of memory efficiency and speed using simulated data. The software is illustrated on real-life data for Crohn's disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Moldova, Republic of 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 62 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 21%
Computer Science 13 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 17%
Mathematics 10 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 7 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#7,620,242
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,737
of 7,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,547
of 199,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#48
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.