4.7 Article

Presence of Multiple Independent Effects in Risk Loci of Common Complex Human Diseases

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 185-192

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.05.020

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council (MRC)
  2. MRC [G0400546] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0400546] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many genetic loci and SNPs associated with many common complex human diseases and traits are now identified. The total genetic variance explained by these loci for a trait or disease, however, has often been very small. Much of the missing heritability has been revealed to be hidden in the genome among the large number of variants with small effects. Several recent studies have reported the presence of multiple independent SNPs and genetic heterogeneity in trait-associated loci. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that such a phenomenon could be common among loci known to be associated with a complex trait or disease. For testing this hypothesis, a total of 117 loci known to be associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Crohn disease (CD), type 1 diabetes (T1D), or type 2 diabetes (T2D) were selected. The presence of multiple independent effects was assessed in the case-control samples genotyped by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium study and imputed with SNP genotype information from the HapMap Project and the 1000 Genomes Project. Eleven loci with evidence of multiple independent effects were identified in the study, and the number was expected to increase at larger sample sizes and improved statistical power. The variance explained by the multiple effects in a locus was much higher than the variance explained by the single reported SNP effect. The results thus significantly improve our understanding of the allelic structure of these individual disease-associated loci, as well as our knowledge of the general genetic mechanisms of common complex traits and diseases.

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

4.7
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