4.7 Review

Advances in Genomic Analysis of Stroke What Have We Learned and Where Are We Headed?

Journal

STROKE
Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages 825-832

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.570523

Keywords

atherosclerosis; genetics; intracranial aneurysm; ischemia; risk factors; stroke

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP-13430, MOP-79523, CTP-79853]
  2. University of Western Ontario
  3. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario [NA-6059, T-6018, PRG-4854]
  4. Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute
  5. Pfizer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As a result of technological advances, the genomic analysis of stroke has shifted from candidate gene association studies to genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Agnostic GWAS evaluate up to 90% of common genetic variation in a single experiment, creating an improved framework for identifying novel genetic leads for biochemical and cellular mechanisms underlying stroke. Given the ubiquity of the GWAS approach, it has become essential for stroke researchers and clinicians to be able to interpret GWAS results. Thus, we review the basic elements of design, methods, presentation, and interpretation of GWAS in the context of stroke research. In 8 recent stroke GWAS reports, no single locus has been identified in 2 GWAS at a genome-wide level of significance. Additionally, no significant association signal between stroke and a locus with previous evidence from candidate gene studies of stroke has been identified yet. Some caveats of the approach and future directions for stroke genomics are discussed, including the use of intermediate phenotypes, Mendelian randomization, phenomics, and deep resequencing. Intelligent, appropriately powered, multidisciplinary studies incorporating knowledge from clinical medicine, epidemiology, genetics, and molecular biology will be required to fully characterize the genomic contributors to stroke. (Stroke. 2010; 41: 825-832.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available