4.8 Article

The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 D1, 页码 D1005-D1012

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1120

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health [U41-HG007823]
  2. Biogen [OTAR034, OTAR2045]
  3. EMBL-EBI [OTAR034, OTAR2045]
  4. Takeda [OTAR034, OTAR2045]
  5. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute [OTAR034, OTAR2045]
  6. European Molecular Biology Laboratory Core Funds
  7. National Human Genome Research Institute [U41-HG007823]
  8. Celgene [OTAR034, OTAR2045]
  9. GSK [OTAR034, OTAR2045]
  10. Sanofi [OTAR034, OTAR2045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The GWAS Catalog delivers a high-quality curated collection of all published genome-wide association studies enabling investigations to identify causal variants, understand disease mechanisms, and establish targets for novel therapies. The scope of the Catalog has also expanded to targeted and exome arrays with 1000 new associations added for these technologies. As of September 2018, the Catalog contains 5687 GWAS comprising 71673 variant-trait associations from 3567 publications. New content includes 284 full P-value summary statistics datasets for genome-wide and new targeted array studies, representing 6 x 10(9) individual variant-trait statistics. In the last 12 months, the Catalog's user interface was accessed by approximate to 90000 unique users who viewed >1 million pages. We have improved data access with the release of a new RESTful API to support high-throughput programmatic access, an improved web interface and a new summary statistics database. Summary statistics provision is supported by a new format proposed as a community standard for summary statistics data representation. This format was derived from our experience in standardizing heterogeneous submissions, mapping formats and in harmonizing content. Availability: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据