↓ Skip to main content

Genome-wide association testing in malaria studies in the presence of overdominance

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
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
Genome-wide association testing in malaria studies in the presence of overdominance
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12936-023-04533-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morine Akoth, John Odhiambo, Bernard Omolo

Abstract

In human genetics, heterozygote advantage (heterosis) has been detected in studies that focused on specific genes but not in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). For example, heterosis is believed to confer resistance to certain strains of malaria in patients heterozygous for the sickle-cell gene, haemoglobin S (HbS). Yet the power of allelic tests can be substantially diminished by heterosis. Since GWAS (and haplotype-associations) also utilize allelic tests, it is unclear to what degree GWAS could underachieve because heterosis is ignored. In this study, a two-step approach to genetic association testing in malaria studies in a GWAS setting that may enhance the power of the tests was proposed, by identifying the underlying genetic model first before applying the association tests. Generalized linear models for dominant, recessive, additive, and heterotic effects were fitted and model selection was performed. This was achieved via tests of significance using the MAX and allelic tests, noting the minimum p-values across all the models and the proportion of tests that a given genetic model was deemed the best. An example dataset, based on 17 SNPs, from a robust genetic association study and simulated genotype datasets, were used to illustrate the method. Case-control genotype data on malaria from Kenya and Gambia were used for validation. Results showed that the allelic test returned some false negatives under the heterosis model, suggesting reduced power in testing genetic association. Disparities were observed for some chromosomes in the Kenyan and Gambian datasets, including the sex chromosomes. Thus, GWAS and haplotype associations should be treated with caution, unless the underlying genetic model had been determined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 1 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Unknown 6 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#15,862,459
of 23,572,442 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,538
of 5,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,183
of 251,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#55
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,572,442 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 251,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.