Construction of the model for the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data: genotype-phenotype relationships, gene interaction, linkage, association, disequilibrium, and ascertainment effects for a complex phenotype

The Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated dataset was designed 1) To test the ability to find genes related to a complex disease (such as alcoholism). Such a disease may be given a variety of definitions by different investigators, have associated endophenotypes that are common in the general population, and is likely to be not one disease but a heterogeneous collection of clinically similar, but genetically distinct, entities. 2) To observe the effect on genetic analysis and gene discovery of a complex set of gene × gene interactions. 3) To allow comparison of microsatellite vs. large-scale single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. 4) To allow testing of association to identify the disease gene and the effect of moderate marker × marker linkage disequilibrium. 5) To observe the effect of different ascertainment/disease definition schemes on the analysis. Data was distributed in two forms. Data distributed to participants contained about 1,000 SNPs and 400 microsatellite markers. Internet-obtainable data consisted of a finer 10,000 SNP map, which also contained data on controls. While disease characteristics and parameters were constant, four "studies" used varying ascertainment schemes based on differing beliefs about disease characteristics. One of the studies contained multiplex two- and three-generation pedigrees with at least four affected members. The simulated disease was a psychiatric condition with many associated behaviors (endophenotypes), almost all of which were genetic in origin. The underlying disease model contained four major genes and two modifier genes. The four major genes interacted with each other to produce three different phenotypes, which were themselves heterogeneous. The population parameters were calibrated so that the major genes could be discovered by linkage analysis in most datasets. The association evidence was more difficult to calibrate but was designed to find statistically significant association in 50% of datasets. We also simulated some marker × marker linkage disequilibrium around some of the genes and also in areas without disease genes. We tried two different methods to simulate the linkage disequilibrium.