Cited by 1,503Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenomics and Rare Diseases

Discovering genotypes underlying human phenotypes: past successes for mendelian disease, future approaches for complex disease

Botstein, David, Risch, Neil·2003·Nature Genetics

Abstract

The past two decades have witnessed an explosion in the identification, largely by positional cloning, of genes associated with mendelian diseases. The roughly 1,200 genes that have been characterized have clarified our understanding of the molecular basis of human genetic disease. The principles derived from these successes should be applied now to strategies aimed at finding the considerably more elusive genes that underlie complex disease phenotypes. The distribution of types of mutation in mendelian disease genes argues for serious consideration of the early application of a genomic-scale sequence-based approach to association studies and against complete reliance on a positional cloning approach based on a map of anonymous single nucleotide polymorphism haplotypes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ng1090

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • The common disease-common variant hypothesis has been refuted by the missing heritability problem.

    “When GWAS began the field was dominated by the simple common disease-common variant (CD-CV) hypothesis1–4 has been refuted in light of the so-called ‘missing heritability problem’”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Botstein, D., & Risch, N.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Botstein, David
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2003-03
Volume
33
Issue
S3
Pages
228-237
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W1985849948
Cited by
1,503
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 72
FWCI
15.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
genotype-phenotype correlation, complex diseases, monogenic disorders, positional cloning, single nucleotide polymorphisms, haplotype mapping, mutation spectrum, association studies, gene mapping
MeSH terms
Alleles, Chromosome Mapping, Cloning, Molecular, Genotype, Humans, Mutation, Phenotype, Linkage Disequilibrium, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genomics, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

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