Cited by 12Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Critical issues in the inclusion of genetic and epigenetic information in prevention and intervention trials

Open access
Latendresse, Shawn J., Musci, Rashelle, Maher, Brion S.·2018·Prevention Science

Abstract

Human genetic research in the past decade has generated a wealth of data from the genome-wide association scan era, much of which is catalogued and freely available. These data will typically test the relationship between a single nucleotide variant or polymorphism (SNP) and some outcome, disease, or trait. Ongoing investigations will yield a similar wealth of data regarding epigenetic phenomena. These data will typically test the relationship between DNA methylation at a single genomic location/region and some outcome. Most of these findings will be the result of cross-sectional investigations typically using ascertained cases and controls. Consequently, most methodological consideration focuses on methods appropriate for simple case-control comparisons. It is expected that a growing number of investigators with longitudinal experimental prevention or intervention cohorts will also measure genetic and epigenetic indicators as part of their investigations, harvesting the wealth of information generated by the genome-wide association study (GWAS) era to allow for targeted hypothesis testing in the next generation of prevention and intervention trials. Herein, we discuss appropriate quality control and statistical modelling of genetic, polygenic, and epigenetic measures in longitudinal models. We specifically discuss quality control, population stratification, genotype imputation, pathway approaches, and proper modelling of an interaction between a specific genetic variant and an environment variable (GxE interaction).

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 · 10.1007/s11121-017-0785-1

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Issues such as cost, speed of delivery, errors of variant annotation, logical and methodological issues remain in human genomic and epigenomic studies.

    “Nonetheless, issues such as cost, speed of delivery, errors of variant annotation, logical and methodological issues (e.g., the appropriate selection of the cohort, population stratification and statistical approaches) remain in human genomic and epigenomic studies (298, 299).”

    From Epigenetic Modifications in Stress Response Genes Associated With Childhood Trauma (2019) · cites this paper as [298]

    The Abstract and Population Stratification section (page numbers unavailable in our copy) discuss methodological and statistical pitfalls, including population stratification. The paper describes genomic arrays as relatively inexpensive, but the cited passages do not establish cost or speed of delivery as remaining problems, or discuss errors of variant annotation as such. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Latendresse, S. J., Musci, R., & Maher, B. S.
Affiliations
  • Baylor University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Latendresse, Shawn J.
  • Maher, Brion S.
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2017-04-13
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
58-67
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2605722624
Cited by
12
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA036525, R01DA039408)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA020333)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
genetic data, epigenetic information, DNA methylation, single nucleotide polymorphisms, prevention trials, longitudinal data, quality control, population stratification, genotype imputation, pathway analysis, gene-environment interaction, polygenic risk score, statistical modeling
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Genotype, Humans, Preventive Medicine, DNA Methylation, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genetic Research, Genome-Wide Association Study, Epigenomics

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