ArticleGenetic epidemiology2015
Population genetic simulations of complex phenotypes with implications for rare variant association tests.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolutionary perspectives on polygenic selection, missing heritability, and GWAS.Human genetics · 2020Review
- Population genetic simulation study of power in association testing across genetic architectures and study designs.Genetic epidemiology · 2020Article
- PGsim: A Comprehensive and Highly Customizable Personal Genome Simulator.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Ultrarare variants drive substantial cis heritability of human gene expression.Nature genetics · 2019Article
- Exploiting selection at linked sites to infer the rate and strength of adaptation.Nature ecology & evolution · 2019Article
- Human demographic history has amplified the effects of background selection across the genome.PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- A Model of Compound Heterozygous, Loss-of-Function Alleles Is Broadly Consistent with Observations from Complex-Disease GWAS Datasets.PLoS genetics · 2017Article
- Selection and explosive growth alter genetic architecture and hamper the detection of causal rare variants.Genome research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Demographic events and natural selection alter patterns of genetic variation within populations and may play a substantial role in shaping the genetic architecture of complex phenotypes and disease. However, the joint impact of these basic evolutionary forces is often ignored in the assessment of statistical tests of association. Here, we provide a simulation-based framework for generating DNA sequences that incorporates selection and demography with flexible models for simulating phenotypic variation (sfs_coder). This tool also allows the user to perform locus-specific simulations by automatically querying annotated genomic functional elements and genetic maps. We demonstrate the effects of evolutionary forces on patterns of genetic variation by simulating recently inferred models of human selection and demography. We use these simulations to show that the demographic model and locus-specific features, such as the proportion of sites under selection, may have practical implications for estimating the statistical power of sequencing-based rare variant association tests. In particular, for some phenotype models, there may be higher power to detect rare variant associations in African populations compared to non-Africans, but power is considerably reduced in regions of the genome with rampant negative selection. Furthermore, we show that existing methods for simulating large samples based on resampling from a small set of observed haplotypes fail to recapitulate the distribution of rare variants in the presence of rapid population growth (as has been observed in several human populations).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.