Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using genome‐wide pathway analysis to unravel the etiology of complex diseases

Open access
Elbers, Clara C., van Eijk, Kristel R., Franke, Lude, Mulder, Flip, van der Schouw, Yvonne T., Wijmenga, Cisca, Onland‐Moret, N. Charlotte·2009·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Several genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have been published on various complex diseases. Although, new loci are found to be associated with these diseases, still only very little of the genetic risk for these diseases can be explained. As GWAS are still underpowered to find small main effects, and gene‐gene interactions are likely to play a role, the data might currently not be analyzed to its full potential. In this study, we evaluated alternative methods to study GWAS data. Instead of focusing on the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with the highest statistical significance, we took advantage of prior biological information and tried to detect overrepresented pathways in the GWAS data. We evaluated whether pathway classification analysis can help prioritize the biological pathways most likely to be involved in the disease etiology. In this study, we present the various benefits and limitations of pathway‐classification tools in analyzing GWAS data. We show multiple differences in outcome between pathway tools analyzing the same dataset. Furthermore, analyzing randomly selected SNPs always results in significantly overrepresented pathways, large pathways have a higher chance of becoming statistically significant and the bioinformatics tools used in this study are biased toward detecting well‐defined pathways. As an example, we analyzed data from two GWAS on type 2 diabetes (T2D): the Diabetes Genetics Initiative (DGI) and the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC). Occasionally the results from the DGI and the WTCCC GWAS showed concordance in overrepresented pathways, but discordance in the corresponding genes. Thus, incorporating gene networks and pathway classification tools into the analysis can point toward significantly overrepresented molecular pathways, which cannot be picked up using traditional single‐locus analyses. However, the limitations discussed in this study, need to be addressed before these methods can be widely used. Genet. Epidemiol. 33:419–431, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gepi.20395

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Elbers, C. C., van Eijk, K. R., Franke, L., Mulder, F., van der Schouw, Y. T., Wijmenga, C., & Onland‐Moret, N. C.
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-02-20
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
419-431
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2049963771
Cited by
190
References
11
FWCI
11.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Using genome‐wide pathway analysis to unravel the etiology of complex diseases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/gepi.20395
The paper
Elbers, C. C., van Eijk, K. R., Franke, L., Mulder, F., van der Schouw, Y. T., Wijmenga, C., & Onland‐Moret, N. C. (2009). Using genome‐wide pathway analysis to unravel the etiology of complex diseases. Genetic Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.20395

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.