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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Logue, Mark W, George, Andrew W, Spence, M Anne, Vieland, Veronica J
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