Cargando…

Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods

BACKGROUND: We investigated the influence of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and empirical power of two haplotype based association methods applied to candidate regions. We compared the performance of the Mantel Statistic Using Haplotype Sharing and the haplotype frequency based score tes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marquard, Vivien, Beckmann, Lars, Heid, Iris M, Lamina, Claudia, Chang-Claude, Jenny
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2648998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19178712
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-10-3
_version_ 1782165008441933824
author Marquard, Vivien
Beckmann, Lars
Heid, Iris M
Lamina, Claudia
Chang-Claude, Jenny
author_facet Marquard, Vivien
Beckmann, Lars
Heid, Iris M
Lamina, Claudia
Chang-Claude, Jenny
author_sort Marquard, Vivien
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We investigated the influence of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and empirical power of two haplotype based association methods applied to candidate regions. We compared the performance of the Mantel Statistic Using Haplotype Sharing and the haplotype frequency based score test with that of the Armitage trend test. Our study is based on 1000 replication of simulated case-control data settings with 500 cases and 500 controls, respectively. One of the examined markers was set to be the disease locus with a simulated odds ratio of 3. Differential and non-differential genotyping errors were introduced following a misclassification model with varying mean error rates per locus in the range of 0.2% to 15.6%. RESULTS: We found that the type I error rate of all three test statistics hold the nominal significance level in the presence of nondifferential genotyping errors and low error rates. For high and differential error rates, the type I error rate of all three test statistics was inflated, even when genetic markers not in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium were removed. The empirical power of all three association test statistics remained high at around 89% to 94% when genotyping error rates were low, but decreased to 48% to 80% for high and nondifferential genotyping error rates. CONCLUSION: Currently realistic genotyping error rates for candidate gene analysis (mean error rate per locus of 0.2%) pose no significant problem for the type I error rate as well as the power of all three investigated test statistics.
format Text
id pubmed-2648998
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26489982009-02-28 Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods Marquard, Vivien Beckmann, Lars Heid, Iris M Lamina, Claudia Chang-Claude, Jenny BMC Genet Methodology Article BACKGROUND: We investigated the influence of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and empirical power of two haplotype based association methods applied to candidate regions. We compared the performance of the Mantel Statistic Using Haplotype Sharing and the haplotype frequency based score test with that of the Armitage trend test. Our study is based on 1000 replication of simulated case-control data settings with 500 cases and 500 controls, respectively. One of the examined markers was set to be the disease locus with a simulated odds ratio of 3. Differential and non-differential genotyping errors were introduced following a misclassification model with varying mean error rates per locus in the range of 0.2% to 15.6%. RESULTS: We found that the type I error rate of all three test statistics hold the nominal significance level in the presence of nondifferential genotyping errors and low error rates. For high and differential error rates, the type I error rate of all three test statistics was inflated, even when genetic markers not in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium were removed. The empirical power of all three association test statistics remained high at around 89% to 94% when genotyping error rates were low, but decreased to 48% to 80% for high and nondifferential genotyping error rates. CONCLUSION: Currently realistic genotyping error rates for candidate gene analysis (mean error rate per locus of 0.2%) pose no significant problem for the type I error rate as well as the power of all three investigated test statistics. BioMed Central 2009-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC2648998/ /pubmed/19178712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-10-3 Text en Copyright © 2009 Marquard 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 Methodology Article
Marquard, Vivien
Beckmann, Lars
Heid, Iris M
Lamina, Claudia
Chang-Claude, Jenny
Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
title Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
title_full Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
title_fullStr Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
title_full_unstemmed Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
title_short Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
title_sort impact of genotyping errors on the type i error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2648998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19178712
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-10-3
work_keys_str_mv AT marquardvivien impactofgenotypingerrorsonthetypeierrorrateandthepowerofhaplotypebasedassociationmethods
AT beckmannlars impactofgenotypingerrorsonthetypeierrorrateandthepowerofhaplotypebasedassociationmethods
AT heidirism impactofgenotypingerrorsonthetypeierrorrateandthepowerofhaplotypebasedassociationmethods
AT laminaclaudia impactofgenotypingerrorsonthetypeierrorrateandthepowerofhaplotypebasedassociationmethods
AT changclaudejenny impactofgenotypingerrorsonthetypeierrorrateandthepowerofhaplotypebasedassociationmethods