↓ Skip to main content

Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
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
Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiangqing Sun, Qing Lu, Shubhabrata Mukheerjee, Paul K. Crane, Robert Elston, Marylyn D. Ritchie

Abstract

Gene-gene interactions may contribute to the genetic variation underlying complex traits but have not always been taken fully into account. Statistical analyses that consider gene-gene interaction may increase the power of detecting associations, especially for low-marginal-effect markers, and may explain in part the "missing heritability." Detecting pair-wise and higher-order interactions genome-wide requires enormous computational power. Filtering pipelines increase the computational speed by limiting the number of tests performed. We summarize existing filtering approaches to detect epistasis, after distinguishing the purposes that lead us to search for epistasis. Statistical filtering includes quality control on the basis of single marker statistics to avoid the analysis of bad and least informative data, and limits the search space for finding interactions. Biological filtering includes targeting specific pathways, integrating various databases based on known biological and metabolic pathways, gene function ontology and protein-protein interactions. It is increasingly possible to target single-nucleotide polymorphisms that have defined functions on gene expression, though not belonging to protein-coding genes. Filtering can improve the power of an interaction association study, but also increases the chance of missing important findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 35%
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Master 11 16%
Professor 3 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 22%
Computer Science 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 6 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,057,552
of 25,019,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,555
of 13,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,227
of 233,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#28
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,476 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 233,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.