Assessing Methods for Assigning SNPs to Genes in Gene-Based Tests of Association Using Common Variants
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 8, Issue: 5, Page: e62161
2013
- 36Citations
- 284Usage
- 68Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations36
- Citation Indexes36
- 36
- CrossRef21
- Usage284
- Downloads271
- Abstract Views13
- Captures68
- Readers68
- 68
Article Description
Gene-based tests of association are frequently applied to common SNPs (MAF>5%) as an alternative to single-marker tests. In this analysis we conduct a variety of simulation studies applied to five popular gene-based tests investigating general trends related to their performance in realistic situations. In particular, we focus on the impact of non-causal SNPs and a variety of LD structures on the behavior of these tests. Ultimately, we find that non-causal SNPs can significantly impact the power of all gene-based tests. On average, we find that the "noise" from 6-12 non-causal SNPs will cancel out the "signal" of one causal SNP across five popular gene-based tests. Furthermore, we find complex and differing behavior of the methods in the presence of LD within and between non-causal and causal SNPs. Ultimately, better approaches for a priori prioritization of potentially causal SNPs (e.g., predicting functionality of non-synonymous SNPs), application of these methods to sequenced or fully imputed datasets, and limited use of window-based methods for assigning inter-genic SNPs to genes will improve power. However, significant power loss from non-causal SNPs may remain unless alternative statistical approaches robust to the inclusion of non-causal SNPs are developed. © 2013 Petersen et al.
Bibliographic Details
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/biostatistics_fac/1; https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/60
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84878609902&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23741293; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/biostatistics_fac/1; https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=biostatistics_fac; https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/60; https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=faculty_work; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062161&type=printable; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062161&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062161; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062161
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know