↓ Skip to main content

The advantages and limitations of trait analysis with GWAS: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 519)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
520 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1513 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
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.
Title
The advantages and limitations of trait analysis with GWAS: a review
Published in
Plant Methods, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4811-9-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arthur Korte, Ashley Farlow

Abstract

Over the last 10 years, high-density SNP arrays and DNA re-sequencing have illuminated the majority of the genotypic space for a number of organisms, including humans, maize, rice and Arabidopsis. For any researcher willing to define and score a phenotype across many individuals, Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) present a powerful tool to reconnect this trait back to its underlying genetics. In this review we discuss the biological and statistical considerations that underpin a successful analysis or otherwise. The relevance of biological factors including effect size, sample size, genetic heterogeneity, genomic confounding, linkage disequilibrium and spurious association, and statistical tools to account for these are presented. GWAS can offer a valuable first insight into trait architecture or candidate loci for subsequent validation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,513 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 1%
France 9 <1%
Brazil 9 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Thailand 2 <1%
Other 29 2%
Unknown 1427 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 451 30%
Researcher 274 18%
Student > Master 257 17%
Student > Bachelor 133 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 88 6%
Other 184 12%
Unknown 126 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 978 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 199 13%
Computer Science 38 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 2%
Environmental Science 24 2%
Other 81 5%
Unknown 169 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#869,442
of 12,808,036 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#33
of 519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,375
of 153,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,808,036 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 153,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.