2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-019-0511-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic architecture of subcortical brain structures in 38,851 individuals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

20
196
2
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 205 publications
(219 citation statements)
references
References 121 publications
20
196
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The imaging samples from UK Biobank and ENIGMA were totally independent. More intriguingly, in a latest meta-analysis of imaging data from CHARGE, ENIGMA and UK Biobank (N = 38,851), both SNPs showed genome-wide significant associations with putamen volume (rs7227069, p = 4.64 × 10 −10 ; rs1367635, p = 8.72 × 10 −10 ) 46 .…”
Section: The Depression Risk Alleles Indicated Higher DCC Mrna Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The imaging samples from UK Biobank and ENIGMA were totally independent. More intriguingly, in a latest meta-analysis of imaging data from CHARGE, ENIGMA and UK Biobank (N = 38,851), both SNPs showed genome-wide significant associations with putamen volume (rs7227069, p = 4.64 × 10 −10 ; rs1367635, p = 8.72 × 10 −10 ) 46 .…”
Section: The Depression Risk Alleles Indicated Higher DCC Mrna Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the previous study 44 , there was a strong correlation between the UK Biobank and ENIGMA imaging samples, suggesting that methodologies applied in the measurement and statistical analyses of these phenotypes were relatively consistent. In addition, a more recent GWAS has been conducted to meta-analyze imaging data from CHARGE, ENIGMA and UK Biobank, resulting in a total of 38,851 subjects 46 .…”
Section: Gwas Of Brain Imaging Phenotypesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such a coordinated, two-stage meta-analysis approach has been pursued by most ENIGMA working groups (Hibar et al, 2015(Hibar et al, , 2016Schmaal et al, 2016;Stein et al, 2012;van Erp et al, 2016), particularly due to privacy concerns regarding genetic data. ENIGMA genome-wide association studies still use a meta-analysis approach (Hibar et al, 2017;Satizabal et al, 2019); sites analyze their own data with an agreed upon protocol, which avoids the need to transfer individual participant genomic data, and allows distributed analysis of computationally intense approaches.…”
Section: Meta-analysis Vs Mega-analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the genome-wide significant genes and genes associated with genomewide significant SNPs, we compared our findings with cross-sectional GWAS summary statistics when available. To this end datasets from (Elliott et al, 2018;Hibar et al, 2017;Satizabal et al, 2019;Grasby et al, 2020) were requested/downloaded from (http://enigma.ini.usc.edu/research/downloadenigma-gwas-results/; http://big.stats.ox.ac.uk/download_page). Gene-based association analyses for cross-sectional brain GWAS summary statistics were performed using MAGMA (as described above).…”
Section: Comparison With Cross-sectional Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%