Suppr超能文献

虚假的基因关联。

Spurious genetic associations.

作者信息

Sullivan Patrick F

机构信息

Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7264, USA.

出版信息

Biol Psychiatry. 2007 May 15;61(10):1121-6. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.11.010. Epub 2007 Mar 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Genetic association studies are widely used in biomedical research and yet only a minority of positive findings stand the test of replication. I explored the capacity of association studies to produce false positive findings and the impact of various definitions of replication.

METHODS

Genetically realistic simulation data of a typical genotyping/analytic approach for 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in COMT, a commonly studied candidate gene.

RESULTS

Candidate gene studies like those simulated here are highly likely to produce one or more false positive findings at alpha < or = .05, the pattern of findings can often be "compelling" or "intriguing," and false positive findings propagate and confuse the literature unless the definition of replication is precise.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from single association studies constitute "tentative knowledge" and must be interpreted with exceptional caution. For the association method to function as intended, every statistical comparison must be tracked and reported, and integrated replication is essential. Precise replication (the same SNPs, phenotype, and direction of association) is required in the interpretation of multiple association studies.

摘要

背景

基因关联研究在生物医学研究中被广泛应用,但只有少数阳性结果能经受住重复验证的考验。我探究了关联研究产生假阳性结果的可能性以及各种重复验证定义的影响。

方法

针对一个常被研究的候选基因——儿茶酚-O-甲基转移酶(COMT)中的10个单核苷酸多态性(SNP),采用基因层面逼真的模拟数据,模拟典型的基因分型/分析方法。

结果

像这里模拟的候选基因研究极有可能在α≤0.05时产生一个或多个假阳性结果,结果模式往往可能“令人信服”或“引人关注”,而且除非重复验证的定义精确,否则假阳性结果会在文献中传播并造成混淆。

结论

单个关联研究的结果构成“初步知识”,必须极其谨慎地加以解读。为使关联方法按预期发挥作用,必须追踪并报告每一次统计比较,综合重复验证至关重要。在解读多个关联研究时,需要精确重复验证(相同的SNP、表型和关联方向)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验