Cited by 1,694Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Matrix eQTL: ultra fast eQTL analysis via large matrix operations

Open access
Shabalin, Andrey A.·2012·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analysis links variations in gene expression levels to genotypes. For modern datasets, eQTL analysis is a computationally intensive task as it involves testing for association of billions of transcript-SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism) pair. The heavy computational burden makes eQTL analysis less popular and sometimes forces analysts to restrict their attention to just a small subset of transcript-SNP pairs. As more transcripts and SNPs get interrogated over a growing number of samples, the demand for faster tools for eQTL analysis grows stronger. Results: We have developed a new software for computationally efficient eQTL analysis called Matrix eQTL. In tests on large datasets, it was 2–3 orders of magnitude faster than existing popular tools for QTL/eQTL analysis, while finding the same eQTLs. The fast performance is achieved by special preprocessing and expressing the most computationally intensive part of the algorithm in terms of large matrix operations. Matrix eQTL supports additive linear and ANOVA models with covariates, including models with correlated and heteroskedastic errors. The issue of multiple testing is addressed by calculating false discovery rate; this can be done separately for cis- and trans-eQTLs. Availability: Matlab and R implementations are available for free at http://www.bios.unc.edu/research/genomic_software/Matrix_eQTL Contact: shabalin@email.unc.edu

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts163

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • The capability to demultiplex and identify doublets using natural genetic variation reduces per-sample and per-cell library preparation cost, does not require synthetic barcodes or split-pool strategies, and captures biological variability among individual samples while limiting unwanted technical variability.

    “The capability to demultiplex and identify doublets using natural genetic variation reduces the per-sample and per-cell library preparation cost of single-cell RNA-sequencing, does not require synthetic barcodes or split-pool strategies36–40, and captures biological variability among individual samples while limiting unwanted technical variability.”

    From Multiplexed droplet single-cell RNA-sequencing using natural genetic variation (2018) · cites this paper as [40]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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
Shabalin, A. A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Shabalin, Andrey A.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2012-04-06
Volume
28
Issue
10
Pages
1353-1358
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2100697281
Cited by
1,694
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 172 · 2023: 157 · 2022: 174 · 2021: 192 · 2020: 143 · 2019: 138 · 2018: 132 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 3
FWCI
21.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ca138255-03)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH090936)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA-138255)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES015241)
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
expression quantitative trait loci, computational efficiency, linear models, ANOVA models, correlated errors, heteroscedastic errors, false discovery rate, multiple comparisons, cis-eQTL, trans-eQTL
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Cystic Fibrosis, Genotype, Humans, Models, Genetic, Software, Gene Expression, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, 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