The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Traversing the conceptual divide between biological and statistical epistasis: systems biology and a more modern synthesis
Abstract
Epistasis plays an important role in the genetic architecture of common human diseases and can be viewed from two perspectives, biological and statistical, each derived from and leading to different assumptions and research strategies. Biological epistasis is the result of physical interactions among biomolecules within gene regulatory networks and biochemical pathways in an individual such that the effect of a gene on a phenotype is dependent on one or more other genes. In contrast, statistical epistasis is defined as deviation from additivity in a mathematical model summarizing the relationship between multilocus genotypes and phenotypic variation in a population. The goal of this essay is to review definitions and examples of biological and statistical epistasis and to explore the relationship between the two. Specifically, we present and discuss the following two questions in the context of human health and disease. First, when does statistical evidence of epistasis in human populations imply underlying biomolecular interactions in the etiology of disease? Second, when do biomolecular interactions produce patterns of statistical epistasis in human populations?Answers to these two reciprocal questions will provide an important framework for using genetic information to improve our ability to diagnose, prevent and treat common human diseases. We propose that systems biology will provide the necessary information for addressing these questions and that model systems such as bacteria, yeast and digital organisms will be a useful place to start. BioEssays 27:637–646, 2005. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1205
(1999) · Industrial Robot: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ir.1999.04926fae.001 · Cited by 38,662
A novel genetic system to detect protein–protein interactions
Fields, S., & Song, O.-K. (1989) · Nature · doi:10.1038/340245a0 · Cited by 6,114
Principles of Population Genetics.
Cormack, R. M., Hartl, D. L., & Clark, A. G. (1990) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531471 · Cited by 5,242
XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.
Fisher, R. A. (1919) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh · doi:10.1017/s0080456800012163 · Cited by 4,387
Ritchie, M. D., Hahn, L. W., Roodi, N., Bailey, L. R., Dupont, W. D., Parl, F. F., & Moore, J. H. (2001) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/321276 · Cited by 1,898
Self-citationEvolution the Modern Synthesis
Schmidt, K. P., & Huxley, J. (1943) · Copeia · doi:10.2307/1438156 · Cited by 1,790
A comprehensive review of genetic association studies
Hirschhorn, J. N., Lohmueller, K., Byrne, E., & Hirschhorn, K. (2002) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/00125817-200203000-00002 · Cited by 1,674
A N EW A PPROACH TO D ECODING L IFE : Systems Biology
Ideker, T., Galitski, T., & Hood, L. (2001) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.343 · Cited by 1,664
Evolution. The Modern Synthesis.
Huxley, J. S. (1942) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 1,421
Genetic Dissection of Transcriptional Regulation in Budding Yeast
Brem, R. B., Yvert, G., Clinton, R., & Kruglyak, L. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1069516 · Cited by 1,390
Cited by
Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases
Cordell, H. J. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2579 · Cited by 1,350
Moore, J. H., Gilbert, J. C., Tsai, C.-T., Chiang, F.-T., Holden, T., Barney, N., & White, B. C. (2006) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.11.036 · Cited by 608
Self-citationVelez, D. R., White, B. C., Motsinger, A. A., Bush, W. S., Ritchie, M. D., Williams, S. M., & Moore, J. H. (2007) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.20211 · Cited by 384
Self-citationNovel Alzheimer risk genes determine the microglia response to amyloid-β but not to TAU pathology
Sierksma, A., Lu, A., Mancuso, R., Fattorelli, N., Thrupp, N., Salta, E., Zoco, J., Blum, D., Buée, L., De Strooper, B., et al. (2020) · EMBO Molecular Medicine · doi:10.15252/emmm.201910606 · Cited by 291
Machine Learning for Detecting Gene-Gene Interactions: A Review
McKinney, B. A., Reif, D. M., Ritchie, M. D., & Moore, J. H. (2006) · Applied Bioinformatics · doi:10.2165/00822942-200605020-00002 · Cited by 254
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, J. H., & Williams, S. M.
- Venue
- BioEssays
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-05-12
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 637-646
- ISSN
- 0265-9247 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-1878
- OpenAlex
- W2007669896
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 82
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Traversing the conceptual divide between biological and statistical epistasis: systems biology and a more modern synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bies.20236
- The paper
- Moore, J. H., & Williams, S. M. (2005). Traversing the conceptual divide between biological and statistical epistasis: systems biology and a more modern synthesis. BioEssays. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20236
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.