CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,113Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenomics and Rare DiseasesGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Groupwise Association Test for Rare Mutations Using a Weighted Sum Statistic

Open access
Madsen, Bo Eskerod, Browning, Sharon R.·2009·PLoS Genetics
DOI 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000384PMC PMC2633048
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Resequencing is an emerging tool for identification of rare disease-associated mutations. Rare mutations are difficult to tag with SNP genotyping, as genotyping studies are designed to detect common variants. However, studies have shown that genetic heterogeneity is a probable scenario for common diseases, in which multiple rare mutations together explain a large proportion of the genetic basis for the disease. Thus, we propose a weighted-sum method to jointly analyse a group of mutations in order to test for groupwise association with disease status. For example, such a group of mutations may result from resequencing a gene. We compare the proposed weighted-sum method to alternative methods and show that it is powerful for identifying disease-associated genes, both on simulated and Encode data. Using the weighted-sum method, a resequencing study can identify a disease-associated gene with an overall population attributable risk (PAR) of 2%, even when each individual mutation has much lower PAR, using 1,000 to 7,000 affected and unaffected individuals, depending on the underlying genetic model. This study thus demonstrates that resequencing studies can identify important genetic associations, provided that specialised analysis methods, such as the weighted-sum method, are used.

Overview

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.pgen.1000384

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Genetic models. Model descriptions and examples of predisposing genotypes are shown for the genetic models used. Lines symbolise haplotypes and dots symbolise disease-risk mutations.
Figure 1 Genetic models. Model descriptions and examples of predisposing genotypes are shown for the genetic models used. Lines symbolise haplotypes and dots symbolise disease-risk mutations.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Power versus PAR of group. The power of the investigated methods is shown for different levels of group-PAR. The power simulations were performed using nA = nU = 1000 individuals, 50 D-variants, 50 N-variants and pM = 10%.
Figure 2 Power versus PAR of group. The power of the investigated methods is shown for different levels of group-PAR. The power simulations were performed using nA = nU = 1000 individuals, 50 D-variants, 50 N-variants and pM = 10%.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Power versus number of D-variants. The power of the investigated methods is shown for different number of D-variants (disease-risk contributing variants). The power simulations were performed using nA = nU = 1000 individuals, 50% D-variants, group PAR of 10% and pM = 10%. Note that the jump in the power for the CMC method under the Recessive-set model occurs because a low number of variants yields a high allele-frequency of each variant, and the variants are hence not grouped by the CMC method.
Figure 3 Power versus number of D-variants. The power of the investigated methods is shown for different number of D-variants (disease-risk contributing variants). The power simulations were performed using nA = nU = 1000 individuals, 50% D-variants, group PAR of 10% and pM = 10%. Note that the jump in the power for the CMC method under the Recessive-set model occurs because a low number of variants yields a high allele-frequency of each variant, and the variants are hence not grouped by the CMC method.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Power versus proportion of D-variants. The power of the investigated methods is shown for different proportions of D-variants (disease-risk contributing variants). The power simulations were performed using nA = nU = 1000 individuals, 50 D-variants, group PAR of 10% and pM = 10%.
Figure 4 Power versus proportion of D-variants. The power of the investigated methods is shown for different proportions of D-variants (disease-risk contributing variants). The power simulations were performed using nA = nU = 1000 individuals, 50 D-variants, group PAR of 10% and pM = 10%.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,113

Related

Metadata

Authors
Madsen, B. E., & Browning, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Browning, Sharon R.
ORCID
Browning, Sharon R.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2009-02-13
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
e1000384
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
DOI
10.1371/journal.pgen.1000384
PMC
PMC2633048
OpenAlex
W2029387902
Cited by
1,113
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 115 · 2013: 114 · 2012: 96
FWCI
48.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Auckland
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM075091)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
rare mutations, genetic heterogeneity, resequencing, disease-associated genes, population attributable risk, genetic association
MeSH terms
DNA Mutational Analysis, Genetic Testing, Genetics, Population, Humans, Mutation, Genetic Variation, Models, Statistical, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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