New Entries in the Lottery of Facial GWAS Discovery

1. Cole JB, Manyama M, Kimwaga E, Mathayo J, Larson JR, Libertib DK, et al. (2016) Genomewide association study of african children identifies association of SHIP1 and PDE8A with facial size and shape. PLoS Genet 12(8): e1006174.

2. Shaffer JR, Orlova E, Lee MK, Leslie EJ, Raffensperger ZD, Heike CL et al. (2016) Genome-wide association study reveals multiple loci influencing normal human facial morphology. PLoS Genet 12(8): e1006149.

3. Adhikari K, Fuentes-Guajardo M, Quinto-Sánchez M, Mendoza-Revilla J, Chacón-Duque JC, et al. (2016) A genome-wide association scan implicates DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3, PAX1 and EDAR in human facial variation. Nature communications 7: 11616. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11616 27193062

4. Liu F, van der Lijn F, Schurmann C, Zhu G, Chakravarty MM, et al. (2012) A genome-wide association study identifies five loci influencing facial morphology in Europeans. PLoS Genet 8: e1002932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002932 23028347

5. Paternoster L, Zhurov AI, Toma AM, Kemp JP, St Pourcain B, et al. (2012) Genome-wide Association Study of Three-Dimensional Facial Morphology Identifies a Variant in PAX3 Associated with Nasion Position. The American Journal of Human Genetics 90: 478–485. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.12.021 22341974

6. Prescott SL, Srinivasan R, Marchetto MC, Grishina I, Narvaiza I, et al. (2015) Enhancer divergence and cis-regulatory evolution in the human and chimp neural crest. Cell 163: 68–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.036 26365491

7. Claes P, Liberton DK, Daniels K, Rosana KM, Quillen EE, et al. (2014) Modeling 3D facial shape from DNA. PLoS Genet 10: e1004224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004224 24651127

8. Claes P, Hill H, Shriver MD (2014) Toward DNA-based facial composites: preliminary results and validation. Forensic Science International: Genetics 13: 208–216.

9. Pe'er I, Yelensky R, Altshuler D, Daly MJ (2008) Estimation of the multiple testing burden for genomewide association studies of nearly all common variants. Genetic epidemiology 32: 381–385. doi: 10.1002/gepi.20303 18348202

10. Yang J, Zaitlen NA, Goddard ME, Visscher PM, Price AL (2014) Advantages and pitfalls in the application of mixed-model association methods. Nature genetics 46: 100–106. doi: 10.1038/ng.2876 24473328

11. Joo JWJ, Hormozdiari F, Han B, Eskin E (2016) Multiple testing correction in linear mixed models. Genome biology 17: 1.