↓ Skip to main content

Genotype-Based Test in Mapping Cis-Regulatory Variants from Allele-Specific Expression Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Genotype-Based Test in Mapping Cis-Regulatory Variants from Allele-Specific Expression Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0038667
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Francois Lefebvre, Emilio Vello, Bing Ge, Stephen B. Montgomery, Emmanouil T. Dermitzakis, Tomi Pastinen, Damian Labuda

Abstract

Identifying and understanding the impact of gene regulatory variation is of considerable importance in evolutionary and medical genetics; such variants are thought to be responsible for human-specific adaptation and to have an important role in genetic disease. Regulatory variation in cis is readily detected in individuals showing uneven expression of a transcript from its two allelic copies, an observation referred to as allelic imbalance (AI). Identifying individuals exhibiting AI allows mapping of regulatory DNA regions and the potential to identify the underlying causal genetic variant(s). However, existing mapping methods require knowledge of the haplotypes, which make them sensitive to phasing errors. In this study, we introduce a genotype-based mapping test that does not require haplotype-phase inference to locate regulatory regions. The test relies on partitioning genotypes of individuals exhibiting AI and those not expressing AI in a 2×3 contingency table. The performance of this test to detect linkage disequilibrium (LD) between a potential regulatory site and a SNP located in this region was examined by analyzing the simulated and the empirical AI datasets. In simulation experiments, the genotype-based test outperforms the haplotype-based tests with the increasing distance separating the regulatory region from its regulated transcript. The genotype-based test performed equally well with the experimental AI datasets, either from genome-wide cDNA hybridization arrays or from RNA sequencing. By avoiding the need of haplotype inference, the genotype-based test will suit AI analyses in population samples of unknown haplotype structure and will additionally facilitate the identification of cis-regulatory variants that are located far away from the regulated transcript.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 8%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 34%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 61%
Engineering 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 2 5%
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 12 June 2012.
All research outputs
#17,659,617
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,224
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,001
of 166,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,819
of 3,774 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,511 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 166,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,774 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.