4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Genome-Wide Association Studies: Quality Control and Population-Based Measures

期刊

GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 S45-S50

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.20472

关键词

genotype calling algorithm; data management; population attributable fraction; receiver-operating characteristic curve; signal intensity plot

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM031575-25, R01 GM031575] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM031575] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide association studies, using hundreds of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers, have become a standard approach for identifying disease susceptibility genes. The change in the technology poses substantial computational and statistical challenges that have been addressed in the quality control, imputation, and population-based measure groups of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16. The computational challenges pertain to efficient memory management and computational speed of the statistical procedures, and we discuss an approach for efficient SNP storage. Accuracy and computational speed is relevant for genotype calling, and the results from a comparison of three calling algorithms are discussed. The first statistical challenge is related to statistical quality control, and we discuss two novel quality control procedures. These low-level analyses have an effect on subsequent preparatory steps for high-level analyses, e.g., the quality of genotype imputation approaches. After the conduct of a genome-wide association study with successful replication and/or validation, measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the area under the curve, are investigated. The area under the curve can be constructed from summary data in some situations. Finally, we discuss how the population-attributable risk of a genetic variant that is only measured in a reference data set can be determined. Genet. Epidemiol. 33 (Suppl. 1):S45-S50, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.3
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