Key result
The Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 Problem 2 provided longitudinal phenotype and dense SNP genotype data from 7,130 participants across three generations of the Framingham Heart Study to facilitate methodological research.
Observational (n=7,130)
No
This paper describes the Framingham Heart Study dataset provided for the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 to facilitate the development of new procedures for analyzing genome-wide scans with longitudinal family data.
Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 (GAW16) Problem 2 presented data from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS), an observational, prospective study of risk factors for cardiovascular disease begun in 1948. Data have been collected in three generations of family participants in the study and the data presented for GAW16 included phenotype data from all three generations, with four examinations of data collected repeatedly for the first two generations. The trait data consisted of information on blood pressure, hypertension treatment, lipid levels, diabetes and blood glucose, smoking, alcohol consumed, weight, and coronary heart disease incidence. Additionally, genotype data obtained through a genome-wide scan (FHS SHARe) of 550,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Affymetrix chips were included with the GAW16 data. The genotype data were also used for GAW16 Problem 3, where simulated phenotypes were generated using the actual FHS genotypes. These data served to provide investigators with a rich resource to study the behavior of genome-wide scans with longitudinally collected family data and to develop and apply new procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cupples et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease (n=7,130). Genetic and phenotypic data collection was evaluated. The Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 Problem 2 provided longitudinal phenotype and dense SNP genotype data from 7,130 participants across three generations of the Framingham Heart Study to facilitate methodological research.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: