Every issue of Nature Genetics is packed full of them, and they're the basis for the risk predictions offered by every personal genomics company - but how do you make sense of a genome-wide association study? How can you tell the difference between results you can trust and those you should treat with caution?
Over at Genomes Unzipped, Jeff Barrett (who's authored more GWAS than most) explains some of the key features of these studies, and what to keep an eye out for when interpreting their results.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has four excellent and thought-provoking articles on the recent revolution in the genetics of common disease and its implications for personalised medicine and personal genomics. Razib and Misha Angrist have already commented, and there's…
Well, it's a little late, but I finally have a list of what I see as some of the major trends that will play out in the human genomics field in 2009 - both in terms of research outcomes, and shifts in the rapidly-evolving consumer genomics industry.
For genetics-savvy readers a lot of these…
Late last week I stumbled across a press release with an attention-grabbing headline ("The Causes of Common Diseases are Not Genetic Concludes a New Analysis") linking to a lengthy blog post at the Bioscience Resource Project, a website devoted to food and agriculture. The post, written by two…
Late last week I stumbled across a press release with an attention-grabbing headline ("The Causes of Common Diseases are Not Genetic Concludes a New Analysis") linking to a lengthy blog post at the Bioscience Resource Project, a website devoted to food and agriculture. The post, written by two…