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
I wrote a few days ago about a debate in the New England Journal of Medicine over the value of data emerging from recent genome-wide studies of the role of genetic variation in common human diseases and other traits. David Goldstein argued that genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have generated…
This critique of genome-wide association studies by Jon McClellan and Mary-Claire King in Cell is the latest salvo in a prolonged backlash against genome-wide association studies (GWAS).
I hope to have more on the McClellan and King paper shortly, but in the meantime I will point you to a positive…
When an article was published in Science last week reporting that DNA samples from exceptionally long-lived individuals differed detectably from those of normal individuals, it got plenty of positive attention from the mainstream media. However, the buzz from experts was rapid and telling: my…
Cho, Y., Go, M., Kim, Y., Heo, J., Oh, J., Ban, H., Yoon, D., Lee, M., Kim, D., Park, M., Cha, S., Kim, J., Han, B., Min, H., Ahn, Y., Park, M., Han, H., Jang, H., Cho, E., Lee, J., Cho, N., Shin, C., Park, T., Park, J., Lee, J., Cardon, L., Clarke, G., McCarthy, M., Lee, J., Lee, J., Oh, B.,…