Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1371/journal.pgen.1005852

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005852
suck pdf from google scholar
C4824358!4824358!27055023
unlimited free pdf from europmc27055023    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

suck abstract from ncbi


Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\27055023.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117
pmid27055023      PLoS+Genet 2016 ; 12 (4): ä
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • The Increasing Importance of Gene-Based Analyses #MMPMID27055023
  • Cirulli ET
  • PLoS Genet 2016[Apr]; 12 (4): ä PMID27055023show ga
  • In recent years, genome and exome sequencing studies have implicated a plethora of new disease genes with rare causal variants. Here, I review 150 exome sequencing studies that claim to have discovered that a disease can be caused by different rare variants in the same gene, and I determine whether their methods followed the current best-practice guidelines in the interpretation of their data. Specifically, I assess whether studies appropriately assess controls for rare variants throughout the entire gene or implicated region as opposed to only investigating the specific rare variants identified in the cases, and I assess whether studies present sufficient co-segregation data for statistically significant linkage. I find that the proportion of studies performing gene-based analyses has increased with time, but that even in 2015 fewer than 40% of the reviewed studies used this method, and only 10% presented statistically significant co-segregation data. Furthermore, I find that the genes reported in these papers are explaining a decreasing proportion of cases as the field moves past most of the low-hanging fruit, with 50% of the genes from studies in 2014 and 2015 having variants in fewer than 5% of cases. As more studies focus on genes explaining relatively few cases, the importance of performing appropriate gene-based analyses is increasing. It is becoming increasingly important for journal editors and reviewers to require stringent gene-based evidence to avoid an avalanche of misleading disease gene discovery papers.
  • ä


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box