↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Evaluation of the Metabochip Genotyping Array in African Americans and Implications for Fine Mapping of GWAS-Identified Loci: The PAGE Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035651
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Metabochip is a custom genotyping array designed for replication and fine mapping of metabolic, cardiovascular, and anthropometric trait loci and includes low frequency variation content identified from the 1000 Genomes Project. It has 196,725 SNPs concentrated in 257 genomic regions. We evaluated the Metabochip in 5,863 African Americans; 89% of all SNPs passed rigorous quality control with a call rate of 99.9%. Two examples illustrate the value of fine mapping with the Metabochip in African-ancestry populations. At CELSR2/PSRC1/SORT1, we found the strongest associated SNP for LDL-C to be rs12740374 (p = 3.5 × 10(-11)), a SNP indistinguishable from multiple SNPs in European ancestry samples due to high correlation. Its distinct signal supports functional studies elsewhere suggesting a causal role in LDL-C. At CETP we found rs17231520, with risk allele frequency 0.07 in African Americans, to be associated with HDL-C (p = 7.2 × 10(-36)). This variant is very rare in Europeans and not tagged in common GWAS arrays, but was identified as associated with HDL-C in African Americans in a single-gene study. Our results, one narrowing the risk interval and the other revealing an associated variant not found in Europeans, demonstrate the advantages of high-density genotyping of common and rare variation for fine mapping of trait loci in African American samples.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
New Zealand 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 65 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 23%
Researcher 15 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Mathematics 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 9 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 April 2012.
All research outputs
#23,472,213
of 34,575,175 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#144,200
of 225,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,275
of 212,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,774
of 4,071 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,575,175 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,123 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 212,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,071 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.