Cited by 65Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsForensic and Genetic Research

Optimal selection of SNP markers for disease association studies.

Halldórsson, Bjarni V., Istrail, Sorin, De La Vega, Francisco M.·2004·Human Heredity

Abstract

Genetic association studies with population samples hold the promise of uncovering the susceptibility genes underlying the heritability of complex or common disease. Most association studies rely on the use of surrogate markers, single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) being the most suitable due to their abundance and ease of scoring. SNP marker selection is aimed to increase the chances that at least one typed SNP would be in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the disease causative variant, while at the same time controlling the cost of the study in terms of the number of markers genotyped and samples. Empirical studies reporting block-like segments in the genome with high LD and low haplotype diversity have motivated a marker selection strategy whereby subsets of SNPs that 'tag' the common haplotypes of a region are picked for genotyping, avoiding typing redundant SNPs. Based on these initial observations, a plethora of 'tagging' algorithms for selecting minimum informative subsets of SNPs has recently appeared in the literature. These differ mostly in two major aspects: the quality or correlation measure used to define tagging and the algorithm used for the minimization of the final number of tagging SNPs. In this review we describe the available tagging algorithms utilizing a 3-step unifying framework, point out their methodological and conceptual differences, and make an assessment of their assumptions, performance, and scalability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000083546

Cites

56 of 56 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halldórsson, B. V., Istrail, S., & De La Vega, F. M.
Venue
Human Heredity
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2004
Volume
58
Issue
3-4
Pages
190-202
ISSN
  • 0001-5652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0062
OpenAlex
W2149138815
Cited by
65
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Heredity (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 › Forensic and Genetic Research
Keywords
SNP marker selection, genetic association studies, linkage disequilibrium, haplotype diversity, tag SNPs, correlation measures
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Alleles, Genetic Markers, Genetic Techniques, Genotype, Haplotypes, Humans, Models, Genetic, Software, Time Factors, Models, Statistical, Linkage Disequilibrium, Multivariate Analysis, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Principal Component Analysis, Genetic Diseases, Inborn

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