↓ Skip to main content

Double genomic control is not effective to correct for population stratification in meta-analysis for genome-wide association studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Double genomic control is not effective to correct for population stratification in meta-analysis for genome-wide association studies
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2012.00300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shudong Wang, Wenan Chen, Xiangning Chen, Fengjiao Hu, Kellie J. Archer, hb Nianjun Liu, Shumei Sun, Guimin Gao

Abstract

Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has become a useful tool to identify genetic variants that are associated with complex human diseases. To control spurious associations between genetic variants and disease that are caused by population stratification, double genomic control (GC) correction for population stratification in meta-analysis for GWAS has been implemented in the software METAL and GWAMA and is widely used by investigators. In this research, we conducted extensive simulation studies to evaluate the double GC correction method in meta-analysis and compared the performance of the double GC correction with that of a principal components analysis (PCA) correction method in meta-analysis. Results show that when the data consist of population stratification, using double GC correction method can have inflated type I error rates at a marker with significant allele frequency differentiation in the subpopulations (such as caused by recent strong selection). On the other hand, the PCA correction method can control type I error rates well and has much higher power in meta-analysis compared to the double GC correction method, even though in the situation that the casual marker does not have significant allele frequency difference between the subpopulations. We applied the double GC correction and PCA correction to meta-analysis of GWAS for two real datasets from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) project and the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) project. The results also suggest that PCA correction is more effective than the double GC correction in meta-analysis.

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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 14%
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 28 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#6,017
of 11,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,358
of 244,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#169
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 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 11,754 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 244,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.