ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics1992
Comparison of a multipoint identity-by-descent method with parametric multipoint linkage analysis for mapping quantitative traits.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Including endophenotypes as covariates in variance component heritability and linkage analysis.BMC genetics · 2005Article
- Combined linkage and association mapping of quantitative trait loci by multiple markers.Genetics · 2005Article
- Affected-sib-pair analyses reveal support of prior evidence for a susceptibility locus for bipolar disorder, on 21q.American journal of human genetics · 1996Article
- Article
- Article
- Computation of identity-by-descent proportions shared by two siblings.American journal of human genetics · 1994Article
- Extended multipoint identity-by-descent analysis of human quantitative traits: efficiency, power, and modeling considerations.American journal of human genetics · 1993Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We previously developed a method of partitioning genetic variance of a quantitative trait to loci in specific chromosomal regions. In this paper, we compare this method--multipoint IBD (identical by descent) method (MIM)--with parametric multipoint linkage analysis (MLINK). A simulation study was performed comparing the methods for the major-locus, mixed, and two-locus models. The criterion for comparisons between MIM and MLINK was the average lod score from multiple replicates of simulated data sets. The effect of gene frequency, dominance, model misspecification, marker spacing, and informativeness are also considered in a smaller set of simulations. Within the context of the models examined, the MIM approach was found to be comparable in power with parametric multipoint linkage analysis when (a) parental data are unknown, (b) the effect of the major locus is small and there is additional genetic variation, or (c) the parameters of the major-locus model are misspecified. The performance of the MIM method relative to MLINK was markedly lower when the allele frequency at the trait locus was .2 versus .5, particularly for the case when parental data were assumed to be known. Dominance at the trait major locus, as well as marker spacing and heterozygosity, did not appear to have a large effect on the ELOD comparisons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
1539596PMC1684304What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.