↓ Skip to main content

Design Considerations for Massively Parallel Sequencing Studies of Complex Human Disease

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Design Considerations for Massively Parallel Sequencing Studies of Complex Human Disease
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0023221
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bing-Jian Feng, Sean V. Tavtigian, Melissa C. Southey, David E. Goldgar

Abstract

Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS) allows sequencing of entire exomes and genomes to now be done at reasonable cost, and its utility for identifying genes responsible for rare Mendelian disorders has been demonstrated. However, for a complex disease, study designs need to accommodate substantial degrees of locus, allelic, and phenotypic heterogeneity, as well as complex relationships between genotype and phenotype. Such considerations include careful selection of samples for sequencing and a well-developed strategy for identifying the few "true" disease susceptibility genes from among the many irrelevant genes that will be found to harbor rare variants. To examine these issues we have performed simulation-based analyses in order to compare several strategies for MPS sequencing in complex disease. Factors examined include genetic architecture, sample size, number and relationship of individuals selected for sequencing, and a variety of filters based on variant type, multiple observations of genes and concordance of genetic variants within pedigrees. A two-stage design was assumed where genes from the MPS analysis of high-risk families are evaluated in a secondary screening phase of a larger set of probands with more modest family histories. Designs were evaluated using a cost function that assumes the cost of sequencing the whole exome is 400 times that of sequencing a single candidate gene. Results indicate that while requiring variants to be identified in multiple pedigrees and/or in multiple individuals in the same pedigree are effective strategies for reducing false positives, there is a danger of over-filtering so that most true susceptibility genes are missed. In most cases, sequencing more than two individuals per pedigree results in reduced power without any benefit in terms of reduced overall cost. Further, our results suggest that although no single strategy is optimal, simulations can provide important guidelines for study design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 7%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Hong Kong 1 1%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Professor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Mathematics 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Engineering 5 7%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 7 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 January 2013.
All research outputs
#13,007,010
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#102,308
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,628
of 119,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,279
of 2,356 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 119,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,356 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.