SynthesisGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025
Genome-wide association analysis using multiple Atlantic salmon populations.
Synthesis in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigating the genetic basis of susceptibility to amoebic gill disease and idiopathic gill lesions in Atlantic salmon populations using field data.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
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
backgroundIn a previous study, we found low persistence of linkage disequilibrium (LD) phase across breeding populations of Atlantic salmon. Accordingly, we observed no increase in accuracy from combining these populations for genomic prediction. In this study, we aimed to examine if the same were true for detection power in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), in terms of reduction in p-values, and if the precision of mapping quantitative trait loci (QTL) would improve from such analysis. Since individual records may not always be available, e.g. due to proprietorship or confidentiality, we also compared mega-analysis and meta-analysis. Mega-analysis needs access to all individual records, whereas meta-analysis utilizes parameters, such as p-values or allele substitution effects, from multiple studies or populations. Furthermore, different methods for determining the presence or absence of independent or secondary signals, such as conditional association analysis, approximate conditional and joint analysis (COJO), and the clumping approach, were assessed.
resultsMega-analysis resulted in increased detection power, in terms of reduction in p-values, and increased precision, compared to the within-population GWAS. Only one QTL was detected using conditional association analysis, both within populations and in mega-analysis, while the number of QTL detected with COJO and the clumping approach ranged from 1 to 19. The allele substitution effect and -log
conclusionsOur results show that combining multiple datasets or populations in a mega-analysis can increase detection power and mapping precision. With meta-analysis, a higher detection power was obtained compared to mega-analysis. However, care must be taken in the interpretation of the meta-analysis results from multiple populations because their test statistics might be inflated due to population structure or cryptic relatedness.
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.