↓ Skip to main content

Detecting disease rare alleles using single SNPs in families and haplotyping in unrelated subjects from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Detecting disease rare alleles using single SNPs in families and haplotyping in unrelated subjects from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 data
Published in
BMC Proceedings, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1753-6561-5-s9-s96
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aldi T Kraja, Jacek Czajkowski, Mary F Feitosa, Ingrid B Borecki, Michael A Province

Abstract

We present an evaluation of discovery power for two association tests that work well with common alleles but are applied to the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 simulations with rare causative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (minor allele frequency [MAF] < 1%). The methods used were genome-wide single-SNP association tests based on a linear mixed-effects model for discovery and applied to the familial sample and sliding windows haplotype association tests for replication, implemented within causative genes in the unrelated individuals sample. Both methods are evaluated with respect to the simulated trait Q2. The linear mixed-effects model and haplotype association tests failed to detect the rare alleles of the simulated associations. In contrast, the linear mixed-effects model and haplotype association tests detected effects for the most important simulated SNPs with MAF > 1%. We conclude that these findings reflect inadequate statistical power (the result of small simulated samples) for the complex genetic model that underlies these data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 31%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 15%
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 01 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,874
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#265
of 374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,929
of 240,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#23
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 374 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 240,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.