Cited by 2,891Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges

Abstract

The past year has witnessed substantial advances in understanding the genetic basis of many common phenotypes of biomedical importance. These advances have been the result of systematic, well-powered, genome-wide surveys exploring the relationships between common sequence variation and disease predisposition. This approach has revealed over 50 disease-susceptibility loci and has provided insights into the allelic architecture of multifactorial traits. At the same time, much has been learned about the successful prosecution of association studies on such a scale. This Review highlights the knowledge gained, defines areas of emerging consensus, and describes the challenges that remain as researchers seek to obtain more complete descriptions of the susceptibility architecture of biomedical traits of interest and to translate the information gathered into improvements in clinical management.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg2344

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 128 references

1 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lettre, G. et al. Genome-wide association studies identify 10 novel loci for height and highlight new biological pathways in human growth. Nature Genet. (in the press).
  2. Loos, R. J. F. et al. Association studies involving over 90,000 people demonstrate that common variants near to MC4R influence fat mass, weight and risk of obesity. Nature Genet. (in the press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,005

Metadata

Authors
McCarthy, M. I., Abecasis, G. R., Cardon, L. R., Goldstein, D. B., Little, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Hirschhorn, J. N.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Human Genetics (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
McCarthy, Mark I.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2008-05
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
356-369
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W2041467022
Cited by
2,891
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 127 · 2017: 160 · 2016: 170 · 2015: 171 · 2014: 200 · 2013: 235 · 2012: 257
FWCI
29.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews 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 › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
genome-wide association study, complex traits, disease susceptibility loci, multifactorial traits, common diseases, genetic basis of disease, clinical translation
MeSH terms
Alleles, Animals, Humans, Genetic Variation, Genome, Human, Quantitative Trait, Heritable, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Quantitative Trait Loci

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