↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Reconsidering Association Testing Methods Using Single-Variant Test Statistics as Alternatives to Pooling Tests for Sequence Data with Rare Variants
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0030238
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Association tests that pool minor alleles into a measure of burden at a locus have been proposed for case-control studies using sequence data containing rare variants. However, such pooling tests are not robust to the inclusion of neutral and protective variants, which can mask the association signal from risk variants. Early studies proposing pooling tests dismissed methods for locus-wide inference using nonnegative single-variant test statistics based on unrealistic comparisons. However, such methods are robust to the inclusion of neutral and protective variants and therefore may be more useful than previously appreciated. In fact, some recently proposed methods derived within different frameworks are equivalent to performing inference on weighted sums of squared single-variant score statistics. In this study, we compared two existing methods for locus-wide inference using nonnegative single-variant test statistics to two widely cited pooling tests under more realistic conditions. We established analytic results for a simple model with one rare risk and one rare neutral variant, which demonstrated that pooling tests were less powerful than even Bonferroni-corrected single-variant tests in most realistic situations. We also performed simulations using variants with realistic minor allele frequency and linkage disequilibrium spectra, disease models with multiple rare risk variants and extensive neutral variation, and varying rates of missing genotypes. In all scenarios considered, existing methods using nonnegative single-variant test statistics had power comparable to or greater than two widely cited pooling tests. Moreover, in disease models with only rare risk variants, an existing method based on the maximum single-variant Cochran-Armitage trend chi-square statistic in the locus had power comparable to or greater than another existing method closely related to some recently proposed methods. We conclude that efficient locus-wide inference using single-variant test statistics should be reconsidered as a useful framework for devising powerful association tests in sequence data with rare variants.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 4 12%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 18%
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Mathematics 4 12%
Computer Science 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 2 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2012.
All research outputs
#31,184,286
of 34,361,833 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#202,017
of 224,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,849
of 204,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,576
of 3,866 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 204,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,866 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.