↓ Skip to main content

Progress in methods for rare variant association

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomic Data, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Progress in methods for rare variant association
Published in
BMC Genomic Data, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12863-015-0316-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie A. Santorico, Audrey E. Hendricks

Abstract

Empirical studies and evolutionary theory support a role for rare variants in the etiology of complex traits. Given this motivation and increasing affordability of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing, methods for rare variant association have been an active area of research for the past decade. Here, we provide a survey of the current literature and developments from the Genetics Analysis Workshop 19 (GAW19) Collapsing Rare Variants working group. In particular, we present the generalized linear regression framework and associated score statistic for the 2 major types of methods: burden and variance components methods. We further show that by simply modifying weights within these frameworks we arrive at many of the popular existing methods, for example, the cohort allelic sums test and sequence kernel association test. Meta-analysis techniques are also described. Next, we describe the 6 contributions from the GAW19 Collapsing Rare Variants working group. These included development of new methods, such as a retrospective likelihood for family data, a method using genomic structure to compare cases and controls, a haplotype-based meta-analysis, and a permutation-based method for combining different statistical tests. In addition, one contribution compared a mega-analysis of family-based and population-based data to meta-analysis. Finally, the power of existing family-based methods for binary traits was compared. We conclude with suggestions for open research questions.

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 %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 62 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 29%
Researcher 15 23%
Student > Master 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 23%
Mathematics 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 8 12%
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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomic Data
#1,008
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#347,382
of 405,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomic Data
#39
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 405,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.