4.3 Article

Direct Genetic Effects and Their Estimation From Matched Case-Control Data

期刊

GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 652-662

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21660

关键词

genetic pathway; mediation; causal diagram; G-estimation

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [G0802320]
  2. Cambridge Statistics Initiative
  3. Fund for Scientific Research (Flanders) [G.0111.12]
  4. IAP research network from the Belgian government (Belgian Science Policy) [P06/03]
  5. Ghent University (Multidisciplinary Research Partnership Bioinformatics: from nucleotides to networks).
  6. Medical Research Council [G0802320] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. MRC [G0802320] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In genetic association studies, a single marker is often associated with multiple, correlated phenotypes (e.g., obesity and cardiovascular disease, or nicotine dependence and lung cancer). A pervasive question is then whether that marker exerts independent effects on all phenotypes. In this paper, we address this question by assessing whether there is a genetic effect on one phenotype that is not mediated through the other ones, so called direct genetic effect. Answering such question may represent an important step in the elucidation of the underlying biological mechanism. Under rather restrictive conditions, such direct genetic effects are known to be estimable by standard regression methods. Under more lenient conditions, in a prospective or unmatched case-control study, these effects can be estimated by using a previously proposed G-estimation method (Vansteelandt [2009] Epidemiology 20, 851860). The present paper extends this method to matched case-control studies, and investigates the conditions under which this extension is valid. We illustrate the method on data from a matched case-control study, which we use to elucidate the pathway implications of a detected association between myocardial infarction and a genetic locus in the chromosomal region of the FTO gene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据