Cited by 8Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyForensic and Genetic ResearchGenomics and Rare Diseases

A remark on rare variants

Oexle, Konrad·2010·Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

The genetic architecture of a disease determines the epidemiological methods for its examination. Recently, Bodmer and Bonilla suggested that moderately strong, moderately rare variants contribute substantially to the genetic population attributable risk (PAR) of common diseases. In the first part of this communication, I provide a concise reconstruction of their deliberation. Variants contributing to human disease can be identified by linkage or by association tests. Risch and Merikangas analyzed the power of these tests by comparing the affected sib-pair linkage test (ASP) and the transmission disequilibrium association test (TDT). In the second part of this paper, I give an accessible reconstruction of this comparison and derive simple approximations in the low allele frequency range, directly showing that the linkage test is much more sensitive to a decrease of frequency or effect size. In the third part, I analyze a disease model whose genetic architecture is proportional to Kimura's infinite sites model. The relation between a variant's selection coefficient and its effect size in disease generation is assumed to be simple, and the number of contributing genetic variants is determined by the sum of their approximative PAR contributions. An association test (TDT) is finally applied to this disease model. For different ranges of effect size and allele frequency, I derive the minimal sample size necessary to detect at least one contributing variant. It turns out that, although the majority of contributing variants is not accessible with realistic sample sizes, a minimum of sample size may be given for moderately strong variants in the 1% frequency range.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/jhg.2010.9

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oexle, K.
Affiliations
TUM Klinikum (DE)
Corresponding author
Oexle, Konrad
Venue
Journal of Human Genetics
Published
2010-03-05
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
219-226
ISSN
  • 1434-5161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-232X
OpenAlex
W2065176962
Cited by
8
References
32
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
rare variants, population attributable risk, genetic architecture of disease, transmission disequilibrium test, statistical power comparison, allele frequency, effect size, sample size determination, common diseases
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Genetic Linkage, Models, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Linkage Disequilibrium, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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