Cargando…
Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations
The Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data presents an interesting, challenging, and plausible example of a complex disease interaction in a dataset. This paper summarizes the ease of detection for each of the simulated Kofendrerd Personality Disorder (KPD) genes across all of the replicates fo...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2005
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1866794/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S141 |
_version_ | 1782133330478628864 |
---|---|
author | Logue, Mark W George, Andrew W Spence, M Anne Vieland, Veronica J |
author_facet | Logue, Mark W George, Andrew W Spence, M Anne Vieland, Veronica J |
author_sort | Logue, Mark W |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data presents an interesting, challenging, and plausible example of a complex disease interaction in a dataset. This paper summarizes the ease of detection for each of the simulated Kofendrerd Personality Disorder (KPD) genes across all of the replicates for five standard linkage statistics. Using the KPD affection status, we have analyzed the microsatellite markers flanking each of the disease genes, plus an additional 2 markers that were not linked to any of the disease loci. All markers were analyzed using the following two-point linkage methods: 1) a MMLS, which is a standard admixture LOD score maximized over θ, α, and mode of inheritance, 2) a MLS calculated by GENEHUNTER, 3) the Kong and Cox LOD score as computed by MERLIN, 4) a MOD score (standard heterogeneity LOD maximized over θ, α, and a grid of genetic model parameters), and 5) the PPL, a Bayesian statistic that directly measures the strength of evidence for linkage to a marker. All of the major loci (D1–D4) were detectable with varying probabilities in the different populations. However, the modifier genes (D5 and D6) were difficult to detect, with similar distributions under the null and alternative across populations and statistics. The pooling of the four datasets in each replicate (n = 350 pedigrees) greatly improved the chance of detecting the major genes using all five methods, but failed to increase the chance to detect D5 and D6. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1866794 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2005 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-18667942007-05-11 Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations Logue, Mark W George, Andrew W Spence, M Anne Vieland, Veronica J BMC Genet Proceedings The Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data presents an interesting, challenging, and plausible example of a complex disease interaction in a dataset. This paper summarizes the ease of detection for each of the simulated Kofendrerd Personality Disorder (KPD) genes across all of the replicates for five standard linkage statistics. Using the KPD affection status, we have analyzed the microsatellite markers flanking each of the disease genes, plus an additional 2 markers that were not linked to any of the disease loci. All markers were analyzed using the following two-point linkage methods: 1) a MMLS, which is a standard admixture LOD score maximized over θ, α, and mode of inheritance, 2) a MLS calculated by GENEHUNTER, 3) the Kong and Cox LOD score as computed by MERLIN, 4) a MOD score (standard heterogeneity LOD maximized over θ, α, and a grid of genetic model parameters), and 5) the PPL, a Bayesian statistic that directly measures the strength of evidence for linkage to a marker. All of the major loci (D1–D4) were detectable with varying probabilities in the different populations. However, the modifier genes (D5 and D6) were difficult to detect, with similar distributions under the null and alternative across populations and statistics. The pooling of the four datasets in each replicate (n = 350 pedigrees) greatly improved the chance of detecting the major genes using all five methods, but failed to increase the chance to detect D5 and D6. BioMed Central 2005-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC1866794/ /pubmed/16451601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S141 Text en Copyright © 2005 Logue et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Proceedings Logue, Mark W George, Andrew W Spence, M Anne Vieland, Veronica J Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
title | Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
title_full | Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
title_fullStr | Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
title_short | Performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
title_sort | performance comparison of two-point linkage methods using microsatellite markers flanking known disease locations |
topic | Proceedings |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1866794/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S141 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT loguemarkw performancecomparisonoftwopointlinkagemethodsusingmicrosatellitemarkersflankingknowndiseaselocations AT georgeandreww performancecomparisonoftwopointlinkagemethodsusingmicrosatellitemarkersflankingknowndiseaselocations AT spencemanne performancecomparisonoftwopointlinkagemethodsusingmicrosatellitemarkersflankingknowndiseaselocations AT vielandveronicaj performancecomparisonoftwopointlinkagemethodsusingmicrosatellitemarkersflankingknowndiseaselocations |