FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2126846806> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2126846806 endingPage "580" @default.
• W2126846806 startingPage "573" @default.
• W2126846806 abstract "Large numbers of control individuals with genome-wide genotype data are now available through various databases. These controls are regularly used in case-control genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to increase the statistical power. Controls are often “unselected” for the disease of interest and are not matched to cases in terms of confounding factors, making the studies more vulnerable to confounding as a result of population stratification. In this communication, we demonstrate that family-based designs can integrate unselected controls from other studies into the analysis without compromising the robustness of family-based designs against genetic confounding. The result is a hybrid case-control family-based analysis that achieves higher power levels than population-based studies with the same number of cases and controls. This strategy is widely applicable and works ideally for all situations in which both family and case-control data are available. The approach consists of three steps. First, we perform a standard family-based association test that does not utilize the between-family component. Second, we use the between-family information in conjunction with the genotypes from unselected controls in a Cochran-Armitage trend test. The p values from this step are then calculated by rank ordering the individual Cochran-Armitage trend test statistics for the genotype markers. Third, we generate a combined p value with the association p values from the first two steps. Simulation studies are used to assess the achievable power levels of this method compared to standard analysis approaches. We illustrate the approach by an application to a GWAS of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder parent-offspring trios and publicly available controls. Large numbers of control individuals with genome-wide genotype data are now available through various databases. These controls are regularly used in case-control genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to increase the statistical power. Controls are often “unselected” for the disease of interest and are not matched to cases in terms of confounding factors, making the studies more vulnerable to confounding as a result of population stratification. In this communication, we demonstrate that family-based designs can integrate unselected controls from other studies into the analysis without compromising the robustness of family-based designs against genetic confounding. The result is a hybrid case-control family-based analysis that achieves higher power levels than population-based studies with the same number of cases and controls. This strategy is widely applicable and works ideally for all situations in which both family and case-control data are available. The approach consists of three steps. First, we perform a standard family-based association test that does not utilize the between-family component. Second, we use the between-family information in conjunction with the genotypes from unselected controls in a Cochran-Armitage trend test. The p values from this step are then calculated by rank ordering the individual Cochran-Armitage trend test statistics for the genotype markers. Third, we generate a combined p value with the association p values from the first two steps. Simulation studies are used to assess the achievable power levels of this method compared to standard analysis approaches. We illustrate the approach by an application to a GWAS of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder parent-offspring trios and publicly available controls. With the advent of high-throughput genotyping, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are ubiquitous, and the number of SNPs used in these studies continues to increase. Through this genotyping breakthrough, genetic variants have been identified and reliably replicated for several complex diseases.1Sladek R. Rocheleau G. Rung J. Dina C. Shen L. Serre D. Boutin P. Vincent D. Belisle A. Hadjadj S. et al.A genome-wide association study identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes.Nature. 2007; 445: 881-885Crossref PubMed Scopus (2296) Google Scholar, 2Scuteri A. Sanna S. Chen W.M. Uda M. Albai G. Strait J. Najjar S. Nagaraja R. Orrú M. Usala G. et al.Genome-wide association scan shows genetic variants in the FTO gene are associated with obesity-related traits.PLoS Genet. 2007; 3: e115Crossref PubMed Scopus (1238) Google Scholar, 3Wellcome Trust Case Control ConsortiumGenome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls.Nature. 2007; 447: 661-678Crossref PubMed Scopus (7479) Google Scholar, 4Himes B.E. Hunninghake G.M. Baurley J.W. Rafaels N.M. Sleiman P. Strachan D.P. Wilk J.B. Willis-Owen S.A. Klanderman B. Lasky-Su J. et al.Genome-wide association analysis identifies PDE4D as an asthma-susceptibility gene.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2009; 84: 581-593Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (252) Google Scholar, 5Steinthorsdottir V. Thorleifsson G. Reynisdottir I. Benediktsson R. Jonsdottir T. Walters G.B. Styrkarsdottir U. Gretarsdottir S. Emilsson V. Ghosh S. et al.A variant in CDKAL1 influences insulin response and risk of type 2 diabetes.Nat. Genet. 2007; 39: 770-775Crossref PubMed Scopus (825) Google Scholar, 6Gudmundsson J. Sulem P. Manolescu A. Amundadottir L.T. Gudbjartsson D. Helgason A. Rafnar T. Bergthorsson J.T. Agnarsson B.A. Baker A. et al.Genome-wide association study identifies a second prostate cancer susceptibility variant at 8q24.Nat. Genet. 2007; 39: 631-637Crossref PubMed Scopus (706) Google Scholar Despite these successes, there are still several factors that limit our current ability to more readily identify disease variants, including insufficient statistical power, population stratification, various forms of between-study heterogeneity, ascertainment schema, environmental influences, and time-varying associations.7Lasky-Su J. Lyon H.N. Emilsson V. Heid I.M. Molony C. Raby B.A. Lazarus R. Klanderman B. Soto-Quiros M.E. Avila L. et al.On the replication of genetic associations: Timing can be everything!.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008; 82: 849-858Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (109) Google Scholar There is no doubt that the field of genetic epidemiology as a whole has overestimated the genetic contribution of common genetic variants. Given these drawbacks, it is therefore essential to fully maximize the sample size and the power of the analysis strategy that is used. Although family-based designs offer the advantage of complete robustness against genetic heterogeneity, this feature comes at the price of reduced statistical power when compared with designs that are based on unrelated subjects. In family-based association designs, the association signal can be orthogonally decomposed into a between-family component and a within-family component. Because the between-family component is biased in the presence of population substructure, family-based association tests (FBATs) have utilized the within-family component for the construction of the association test.8Spielman R.S. McGinnis R.E. Ewens W.J. Transmission test for linkage disequilibrium: The insulin gene region and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM).Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1993; 52: 506-516PubMed Google Scholar, 9Rabinowitz D. Laird N. A unified approach to adjusting association tests for population admixture with arbitrary pedigree structure and arbitrary missing marker information.Hum. Hered. 2000; 50: 211-223Crossref PubMed Scopus (501) Google Scholar In this communication, we develop a new overall FBAT for ascertained samples that integrates unselected, genotyped controls from a population-based study into an overall statistical test. This statistical test has broad applications, because it can be applied to any situation in which family data and case-control data are available. The new overall test is more powerful than case-control studies with the same number of cases and unselected controls, while, at the same time, it is still completely robust against population substructures. As more GWAS data are produced, their control genotypes often become readily available both from publicly available sources (e.g., dbGaP10Mailman M.D. Feolo M. Jin Y. Kimura M. Tryka K. Bagoutdinov R. Hao L. Kiang A. Paschall J. Phan L. et al.The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes.Nat. Genet. 2007; 39: 1181-1186Crossref PubMed Scopus (737) Google Scholar) and from commercial companies (e.g., Affymetrix, Illumina, and Perlegen). Because these control genotypes are easily accessible for use at no extra cost and the proposed method can fully utilize these samples in the analysis of family-based GWAS, our method will increase the statistical power of existing studies while not sacrificing any of the robustness properties of the family design. This testing strategy is available for use in the PBAT suite of analysis tools.11Lange C. DeMeo D. Silverman E.K. Weiss S.T. Laird N.M. PBAT: Tools for family-based association studies.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2004; 74: 367-369Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar Suppose that n independent parent-offspring trios are sampled and genotyped at s biallelic marker loci with alleles A and B. The genotype of the ith proband is denoted by Xi. The parental genotypes in the ith family are also available and are denoted by pi1 and pi2. If the parental information is missing, the proposed methodology can be extended by replacing the parental genotype information, pi1 and pi2, with the sufficient statistic proposed by Rabinowitz and Laird.9Rabinowitz D. Laird N. A unified approach to adjusting association tests for population admixture with arbitrary pedigree structure and arbitrary missing marker information.Hum. Hered. 2000; 50: 211-223Crossref PubMed Scopus (501) Google Scholar Further, we assume that the trio sample is fully ascertained, i.e., all offspring are affected. The analysis of the family data set is now supplemented by the integration of m controls that have been genotyped at the same s loci as the family sample. These controls may be “selected” or “unselected” for the disease of interest. If the controls are unselected for the disease of interest, then individuals will have the disease at the rate prevalent in the population. In contrast, selected controls are specifically chosen to be free of the disease of interest. For most practical purposes, unselected controls are more likely to be available, because the publicly available databases are not selected to exclude any given disease. Similar to the approaches by VanSteen,12Van Steen K. McQueen M.B. Herbert A. Raby B. Lyon H. Demeo D.L. Murphy A. Su J. Datta S. Rosenow C. et al.Genomic screening and replication using the same data set in family-based association testing.Nat. Genet. 2005; 37: 683-691Crossref PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar Ionita,13Ionita-Laza I. McQueen M.B. Laird N.M. Lange C. Genome-wide weighted hypothesis testing in family-based association studies, with an application to a 100K scan.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007; 81: 607-614Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (74) Google Scholar Murphy,14Murphy A. Weiss S.T. Lange C. Screening and replication using the same data set: Testing strategies for family-based studies in which all probands are affected.PLoS Genet. 2008; 4: e1000197Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar and Won,15Won S. Wilk J.B. Mathias R.A. O'Donnell C.J. Silverman E.K. Barnes K. O'Connor G.T. Weiss S.T. Lange C. On the analysis of genome-wide association studies in family-based designs: A universal, robust analysis approach and an application to four genome-wide association studies.PLoS Genet. 2009; 5: e1000741Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar we assessed the evidence of association for each marker locus at a population-based level (i.e., between-family level) and at a within-family level by two statistics that are statistically independent. In order to maintain the original robustness of the family design, we used the transmission disequilibrium test (TDT)8/FBAT9Rabinowitz D. Laird N. A unified approach to adjusting association tests for population admixture with arbitrary pedigree structure and arbitrary missing marker information.Hum. Hered. 2000; 50: 211-223Crossref PubMed Scopus (501) Google Scholar to assess the information about the association at a within-family level. Because the TDT/FBAT approach is a conditional test that conditions on the offsprings' phenotype and the parental genotype information, this information, i.e., offsprings' phenotypes and parental genotypes, in addition to the data on the unselected controls, can be used to construct a measure for association at a population-based level that is statistically independent of the TDT/FBAT statistic.16Lange C. Laird N.M. On a general class of conditional tests for family-based association studies in genetics: The asymptotic distribution, the conditional power, and optimality considerations.Genet. Epidemiol. 2002; 23: 165-180Crossref PubMed Scopus (92) Google Scholar Consequently, for each marker, we assessed the evidence for association at the population level by constructing a Cochran-Armitage (C-A) trend test with a 2 × 3 table. In this table, the genotype distribution for the controls is defined by the unselected set of controls that are not part of the family study but are available for the analysis. The genotype distribution for the cases in this table is derived based on the available and/or allowable data from the family study (i.e., offspring phenotypes and the parental genotypes, also known as the between-family information) in addition to the genotype information from any singleton cases that were not used in the TDT/FBAT. As suggested in the conditional mean model approach,16Lange C. Laird N.M. On a general class of conditional tests for family-based association studies in genetics: The asymptotic distribution, the conditional power, and optimality considerations.Genet. Epidemiol. 2002; 23: 165-180Crossref PubMed Scopus (92) Google Scholar we calculated the genotypes of the affected offspring based on Mendelian transmission from the parents, i.e., E(X|pi1, pi2), and derived the genotype distribution for the cases in the 2 × 3 table based on these calculated genotypes in the offspring generation. If the family sample contained additional unaffected siblings, their imputed genotype could be used to enrich the control distribution. Similarly, if there were additional genotypes from individual cases that were not a part of any family, then this genotype information could be included in the C-A trend test. Although we propose a strategy in which the C-A trend test is used in the second stage, this general technique is flexible and can easily be extended to implement other statistical tests in the second stage for case-control data (e.g., a two degree of freedom test). Similarly, any genetic model can be incorporated into the proposed analytic approach. In this way, we can now construct the population-based component of the overall test for each SNP by computing a C-A trend test statistic for a 2 × 3 table, which is based on the unselected controls and the imputed genotypes for the cases (plus any additional singleton cases). In order to retain the robustness of the original FBAT against population admixture, the p values of the C-A are not obtained on the basis of asymptotic distribution theory but on the basis of the rank of the C-A statistic among the s marker loci. To the ith ranked SNP based on the C-A statistic, we assign the rank-based p value of pTi=(i−0.5)/s. The value 0.5 is a tuning parameter. The primary purpose of the tuning parameter is to protect against population stratification and maximize the statistical power. Methodological work shows that a tuning parameter of 0.5 will always ensure robustness against population stratification. The normal score statistic that corresponds to the p value pTi is denoted by Z(T)i, where Z(T)i is normally distributed with mean 0 and variance 1. The within-family component is assessed with the classical TDT statistic8Spielman R.S. McGinnis R.E. Ewens W.J. Transmission test for linkage disequilibrium: The insulin gene region and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM).Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1993; 52: 506-516PubMed Google Scholar or, if parents are missing and multiple affected and unaffected offspring are available, with the FBAT statistic.9Rabinowitz D. Laird N. A unified approach to adjusting association tests for population admixture with arbitrary pedigree structure and arbitrary missing marker information.Hum. Hered. 2000; 50: 211-223Crossref PubMed Scopus (501) Google Scholar For the ith marker locus, we denote the p value of the FBAT statistic by p(FBATi) and the standardized normal score that reflects the p value by Z(FBATi). The overall test integrating the within-family component, the between-family component, and the unselected controls can now be constructed via the weighted Z approach.17Liptak T. On the combination of independent tests.Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Közl. 1958; 3: 171-197Google ScholarZi=12Z(FBATi)+12Z(Ti) It is straightforward to see that the overall association tests are normally distributed with mean 0 and variance 1. Via the same arguments as in Won et al.,15Won S. Wilk J.B. Mathias R.A. O'Donnell C.J. Silverman E.K. Barnes K. O'Connor G.T. Weiss S.T. Lange C. On the analysis of genome-wide association studies in family-based designs: A universal, robust analysis approach and an application to four genome-wide association studies.PLoS Genet. 2009; 5: e1000741Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar it is apparent that the rank-based p values in the overall test statistic Zi will ensure robustness against population admixture and stratification. For the analytical proof of this property, see Won et al.15Won S. Wilk J.B. Mathias R.A. O'Donnell C.J. Silverman E.K. Barnes K. O'Connor G.T. Weiss S.T. Lange C. On the analysis of genome-wide association studies in family-based designs: A universal, robust analysis approach and an application to four genome-wide association studies.PLoS Genet. 2009; 5: e1000741Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar Intuitively, the population robustness is achieved by the fact that the population-based test statistic T uses a rank-based p value. A rank-based p value can never achieve genome-wide significance by itself because it is always greater than the Bonferroni adjusted significance level, i.e., 1/number of markers > 0.05/number of markers. Therefore, because the overall test statistic Zi can only establish genome-wide significance through the within-family component (FBATi), Zi is inherently robust against population stratification in the same manner that FBATs are robust to population stratification. Because the unselected controls that are integrated in the overall family-based association statistic will be from a different study than the family sample, the presence of potentially strong population stratification is very likely. Although, as discussed above, the overall test will not be biased in the presence of such substructures, stratification between the unselected controls and the family study poses the danger of reducing the overall statistical power, which would eliminate the benefit of including the unselected controls in the analysis. It is therefore recommended to apply population-based adjustment methods18Price A.L. Patterson N.J. Plenge R.M. Weinblatt M.E. Shadick N.A. Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies.Nat. Genet. 2006; 38: 904-909Crossref PubMed Scopus (6289) Google Scholar, 19Luca D. Ringquist S. Klei L. Lee A.B. Gieger C. Wichmann H.E. Schreiber S. Krawczak M. Lu Y. Styche A. et al.On the use of general control samples for genome-wide association studies: Genetic matching highlights causal variants.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008; 82: 453-463Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar to the population-based data, i.e., unselected controls and imputed genotypes, to eliminate such effects and achieve the maximal statistical power. We performed simulations to evaluate the power of the proposed methodology compared with other methodologies commonly in use. We assumed a 1,000,000 SNP GWAS analysis that was adjusted for multiple comparisons via the standard Bonferroni correction. When comparing the different methodologies, we kept the total number of probands equal to 3000 (i.e., 3000 parent-offspring trios and 3000 case-control pairs) for all analysis methods. We conducted simulations with minor allele frequencies (MAFs) ranging from 10% to 40%. We assumed a genetic effect size, measured as an odds ratio, of 1.3 and assumed a disease prevalence of 5% and 10%. Because of the similar findings, we only present the simulation results for a disease prevalence of 5%. We compared the power of a standard FBAT and a standard case-control analysis to the proposed testing methodology with both unselected and selected control individuals. We also compared the power of the proposed testing strategy via a 1:1 and 1:2 ratio of cases to controls. For each power estimate, we performed 10,000 replicate analyses. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the power over a range of MAFs. From these simulations, we see that the power estimates of the new methodology (“New screen”) via a 1:1 ratio of unselected controls to cases is noticeably more powerful than the standard TDT or a standard case-control analysis. Surprisingly, the power for the TDT and the standard case-control analysis is similar, and through additional simulations (data not shown) we found that as the disease prevalence in the population increases (and therefore the number of misclassified individuals in the unselected control sample increases), the power of the new screening method can become even greater than the power for the case-control analysis at specific MAFs. This already happens if the disease prevalence is as small as 10% (data not shown). Figure 1 illustrates the consistent and robust power of our proposed screening method in comparison with either of these default analyses, with increases in power ranging between 10% and 20%.Figure 2Power Simulations Comparing the Method Proposed Here to Standard TDT and Case-Control Analyses with a 1:2 Ratio of Cases to Unselected ControlsShow full captionThis figure depicts the results of power simulations in which we used 3000 probands and compared the standard TDT and case-control methods to the new screening method we propose in this manuscript. In this example, we assume that the control individuals are unselected for the disease of interest and that there is a 1:2 matching of cases to control individuals. By using unselected controls, we assume that there are cases in the control sample at the rate equal to the prevalence of disease in the population.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) This figure depicts the results of power simulations in which we used 3000 probands and compared the standard TDT and case-control methods to the new screening method we propose in this manuscript. In this example, we assume that the control individuals are unselected for the disease of interest and that there is a 1:2 matching of cases to control individuals. By using unselected controls, we assume that there are cases in the control sample at the rate equal to the prevalence of disease in the population. If the number of unselected controls is increased to a 1:2 matching ratio, the standard case-control analysis has increased power compared to the TDT, as shown in Figure 2. This figure also illustrates that the proposed methodology consistently remains the highest powered of the three analysis methods. In some cases, it is possible to obtain a control group that is selected for the disease of interest, meaning that all individuals in the control group are known to not have the disease being studied. Figure 3 shows that, in case of 1:1 case-control matching with selected controls, the new testing strategy substantially outperforms both the TDT and the case-control analysis. Comparable to the situation, as shown in Figure 4, with unselected controls, if the matching is increased to a ratio of two controls for every case, the proposed methodology still outperforms the other two methods but is only marginally better than a standard case-control design. However, one has to bear in mind that this approach still has the additional benefit of being much less susceptible to population stratification, given that a family-based analysis is incorporated into the test statistic.Figure 4Power Simulations Comparing the Method Proposed Here to Standard TDT and Case-Control Analyses with a 1:2 Ratio of Cases to Selected ControlsShow full captionThis figure depicts the results of power simulations in which we used 3000 probands and compared the standard TDT and case-control methods to the new screening method we propose in this manuscript. In this example, we assume that the control individuals are selected for the disease of interest and that there is a 1:2 matching of cases to control individuals.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) This figure depicts the results of power simulations in which we used 3000 probands and compared the standard TDT and case-control methods to the new screening method we propose in this manuscript. In this example, we assume that the control individuals are selected for the disease of interest and that there is a 1:2 matching of cases to control individuals. We assessed the type I error for our simulations with an overall alpha level of 0.05 and 100,000 replicates. After performing this simulation eight different times, the type 1 error rates ranged from 0.495 to 0.0506, indicating that the type I error rate for the proposed methodology was extremely close to what we would expect. We applied these data to families that were collected by the International Multicenter ADHD Genetics (IMAGE) project. Families were identified through attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (MIM 143465) probands aged 5 to 17 attending outpatient clinics at the data collection sites in Europe. A total of 958 affected proband-parent trios were initially selected for the GWAS scan (accession number phs000016.v1.p1). Family members were white, of European origin from seven countries around Europe, including Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as Israel. In this analysis, we excluded all individuals who were of Israeli or Spanish descent because of known differences in ancestral backgrounds for these individuals, making the total number of people that we used in this study 695 parent-offspring trios. More clinical information about the sample can be found elsewhere.20Neale B.M. Lasky-Su J. Anney R. Franke B. Zhou K. Maller J.B. Vasquez A.A. Asherson P. Chen W. Banaschewski T. et al.Genome-wide association scan of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Am. J. Med. Genet. B. Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 2008; 147B: 1337-1344Crossref PubMed Scopus (188) Google Scholar Genotyping was performed by Perlegen Sciences with the Perlegen platform. The Perlegen array has 600,000 tagging SNPs designed to be in high linkage disequilibrium with untyped SNPs for the three HapMap populations. After the data cleaning and quality control procedures, 429,981 autosomal SNPs were available for analytic use. More details can be found elsewhere.20Neale B.M. Lasky-Su J. Anney R. Franke B. Zhou K. Maller J.B. Vasquez A.A. Asherson P. Chen W. Banaschewski T. et al.Genome-wide association scan of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Am. J. Med. Genet. B. Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 2008; 147B: 1337-1344Crossref PubMed Scopus (188) Google Scholar All of the procedures to collect the IMAGE data were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation at each institution. We obtained 1595 individuals that were a part of the Psoriasis study, including 676 control individuals and 919 psoriasis cases, from the dbGaP database (accession number phs000019.v1.p1).21Nair R.P. Duffin K.C. Helms C. Ding J. Stuart P.E. Goldgar D. Gudjonsson J.E. Li Y. Tejasvi T. Feng B.J. et al.Collaborative Association Study of PsoriasisGenome-wide scan reveals association of psoriasis with IL-23 and NF-kappaB pathways.Nat. Genet. 2009; 41: 199-204Crossref PubMed Scopus (1012) Google Scholar The institutional review boards at the respective institutions approved these studies. These individuals comprised the control sample that was used in this analysis. In order to minimize problems with population stratification, we used EIGENSTRAT to identify individuals with ancestral backgrounds that are not representative of the ADHD individuals. We identified 35,836 SNPs that had minimal linkage disequilibrium (r2 < 0.01) to use in EIGENSTRAT. We used five iterations of subject removal in which individuals were removed if they were greater then six standard deviations from the mean of any of the top ten axes of variation. This resulted in 138 controls and 9 ADHD individuals being removed from the analysis. After we identified a group of ADHD individuals and properly matched control individuals, we used the proposed statistical test to identify genetic associations for ADHD. We also evaluated the quantile-quantile plot to verify that the p values did not deviate significantly from what was expected. The new method was applied to the IMAGE sample, and the top 20 associated" @default.
• W2126846806 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5002736890 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5008569720 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5015235673 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5023294157 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5024768165 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5031075129 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5038874292 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5046157340 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5052145058 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5071835676 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5073763243 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5076811441 @default.
• W2126846806 creator A5087186763 @default.
• W2126846806 date "2010-04-01" @default.
• W2126846806 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2126846806 title "On Genome-wide Association Studies for Family-Based Designs: An Integrative Analysis Approach Combining Ascertained Family Samples with Unselected Controls" @default.
• W2126846806 cites W1969151189 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W1971316893 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W1978580001 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W1981132558 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W1987064543 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2025143098 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2045113343 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2045745440 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2052071194 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2058792575 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2062015527 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2065218625 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2097902492 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2100899332 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2102729801 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2108171492 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2110678911 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2111659651 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2113747602 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2125551971 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2134783591 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2157752701 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2160498508 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2161633633 @default.
• W2126846806 cites W2171874894 @default.
• W2126846806 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.02.019" @default.
• W2126846806 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2850439" @default.
• W2126846806 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20346434" @default.
• W2126846806 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2126846806 type Work @default.
• W2126846806 sameAs 2126846806 @default.
• W2126846806 citedByCount "27" @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062012 @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062013 @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062014 @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062015 @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062016 @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062017 @default.
• W2126846806 countsByYear W21268468062021 @default.
• W2126846806 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5002736890 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5008569720 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5015235673 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5023294157 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5024768165 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5031075129 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5038874292 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5046157340 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5052145058 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5071835676 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5073763243 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5076811441 @default.
• W2126846806 hasAuthorship W2126846806A5087186763 @default.
• W2126846806 hasBestOaLocation W21268468061 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C106208931 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C135763542 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C142853389 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C153209595 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C186413461 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C104317684 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C106208931 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C135763542 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C142853389 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C153209595 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C15744967 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C186413461 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C542102704 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C54355233 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C70721500 @default.
• W2126846806 hasConceptScore W2126846806C86803240 @default.
• W2126846806 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2126846806 hasLocation W21268468061 @default.
• W2126846806 hasLocation W21268468062 @default.
• W2126846806 hasLocation W21268468063 @default.

• next