Cited by 114Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Synthetic Associations Are Unlikely to Account for Many Common Disease Genome-Wide Association Signals

Open access
Anderson, Carl A., Soranzo, Nicole, Zeggini, Eleftheria, Barrett, Jeffrey C.·2011·PLoS Biology

Abstract

The Perspective section provides experts with a forum to comment

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000580

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Synthetic association is not expected to account for most missing heritability.

    “Synthetic association is not expected to account for most of the missing heritability19, 51”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [51]

  • The Procrustean theory that common variant signals inevitably reflect "synthetic associations" to rare, high penetrance mutations is not credible.

    “The Procrustean theory that common variant signals inevitably reflect “synthetic associations” 124 to rare, high penetrance mutations is not credible. 77,125–127”

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
Anderson, C. A., Soranzo, N., Zeggini, E., & Barrett, J. C.
Affiliations
Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Carl A.
Venue
PLoS Biology
Published
2011-01-18
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e1000580
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W2136173868
Cited by
114
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 31
FWCI
13.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT091745/Z/10/Z, WT089120/Z/09/Z)
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 › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
common diseases, genetic architecture of disease
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Crohn Disease, Genetics, Population, Humans, Genetic Linkage, Models, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Nod2 Signaling Adaptor Protein, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genetic 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