4.4 Article

Meta-analysis of genome-wide linkage studies for bone mineral density

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 480-486

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1007/s10038-006-0390-9

Keywords

osteoporosis; bone mineral density; linkage; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome-wide linkage studies have shown several chromosome loci that may harbor genes that regulate bone mineral density (BMD), but results have been inconsistent. A meta-analysis was performed to assess evidence for linkage of BMD across whole genome scan studies. Eleven whole-genome scans of BMD or osteoporosis containing 3,097 families with 12,685 individuals were included in this genome scan meta-analysis (GSMA). For each study, 120 genomic bins of similar to 30 cM were defined and ranked according to maximum evidence for linkage within each bin. Bin ranks were weighted and summed across all studies. The Summed rank for each bin was assessed empirically for significance using permutation methods. A total of seven bins lie above the 95% confidence level (P = 0.05) and one bin was above the 99% confidence level (P = 0.01) in the GSMA of eleven linkage studies: bins 16.1 (16pter-16p12.3, Psumrnk < 0.01), 3.3 (3p22.2-3p14.1), 1.1 (1pter-1p36.22), 18.2 (18p11.23-18q12.2), 6.3 (6p21.1-6q15), 20.1 (20pter-20p 12.3), and 18.1 (18pter-18p 11.23). GSMA was performed with seven studies with linkage scores of LOD > 1-1.85 for sensitivity test, confirming the linkage on chromosome 16p and 3p and revealing evidence of new linkage in bins 10.2 (10p14-10q11.21) and 22.2 (22q12.3-22pter). In conclusion, the meta-analysis of whole-genome linkage studies of BMD has shown chromosome 16pter-16p12.3 to have the greatest evidence of linkage as well as revealing evidence of linkage in chromosomes 1p, 3p, 6, 10, 18, 20p, and 22q across studies. This data may provide a basis with which to carry out targeted linkage and candidate gene studies particularly in these regions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available