↓ Skip to main content

Predicting Signatures of “Synthetic Associations” and “Natural Associations” from Empirical Patterns of Human Genetic Variation

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Predicting Signatures of “Synthetic Associations” and “Natural Associations” from Empirical Patterns of Human Genetic Variation
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002600
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Chang, Alon Keinan

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have in recent years discovered thousands of associated markers for hundreds of phenotypes. However, associated loci often only explain a relatively small fraction of heritability and the link between association and causality has yet to be uncovered for most loci. Rare causal variants have been suggested as one scenario that may partially explain these shortcomings. Specifically, Dickson et al. recently reported simulations of rare causal variants that lead to association signals of common, tag single nucleotide polymorphisms, dubbed "synthetic associations". However, an open question is what practical implications synthetic associations have for GWAS. Here, we explore the signatures exhibited by such "synthetic associations" and their implications based on patterns of genetic variation observed in human populations, thus accounting for human evolutionary history -a force disregarded in previous simulation studies. This is made possible by human population genetic data from HapMap 3 consisting of both resequencing and array-based genotyping data for the same set of individuals from multiple populations. We report that synthetic associations tend to be further away from the underlying risk alleles compared to "natural associations" (i.e. associations due to underlying common causal variants), but to a much lesser extent than previously predicted, with both the age and the effect size of the risk allele playing a part in this phenomenon. We find that while a synthetic association has a lower probability of capturing causal variants within its linkage disequilibrium block, sequencing around the associated variant need not extend substantially to have a high probability of capturing at least one causal variant. We also show that the minor allele frequency of synthetic associations is lower than of natural associations for most, but not all, loci that we explored. Finally, we find the variance in associated allele frequency to be a potential indicator of synthetic associations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 8%
Germany 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 41 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Computer Science 4 8%
Mathematics 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 1 2%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,839,497
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#1,613
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,752
of 177,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#10
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 177,520 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.