↓ Skip to main content

Relative performance of gene- and pathway-level methods as secondary analyses for genome-wide association studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomic Data, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Relative performance of gene- and pathway-level methods as secondary analyses for genome-wide association studies
Published in
BMC Genomic Data, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12863-015-0191-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Genevieve L Wojcik, WH Linda Kao, Priya Duggal

Abstract

Despite the success of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), there still remains "missing heritability" for many traits. One contributing factor may be the result of examining one marker at a time as opposed to a group of markers that are biologically meaningful in aggregate. To address this problem, a variety of gene- and pathway-level methods have been developed to identify putative biologically relevant associations. A simulation was conducted to systematically assess the performance of these methods. Using genetic data from 4,500 individuals in the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC), case-control status was simulated based on an additive polygenic model. We evaluated gene-level methods based on their sensitivity, specificity, and proportion of false positives. Pathway-level methods were evaluated on the relationship between proportion of causal genes within the pathway and the strength of association. The gene-level methods had low sensitivity (20-63%), high specificity (89-100%), and low proportion of false positives (0.1-6%). The gene-level program VEGAS using only the top 10% of associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the gene had the highest sensitivity (28.6%) with less than 1% false positives. The performance of the pathway-level methods depended on their reliance upon asymptotic distributions or if significance was estimated in a competitive manner. The pathway-level programs GenGen, GSA-SNP and MAGENTA had the best performance while accounting for potential confounders. Novel genes and pathways can be identified using the gene and pathway-level methods. These methods may provide valuable insight into the "missing heritability" of traits and provide biological interpretations to GWAS findings.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Hungary 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 39 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 30%
Researcher 10 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 13%
Student > Master 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 54%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Psychology 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomic Data
#429
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,467
of 279,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomic Data
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 279,944 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 64% of its contemporaries.