Cargando…

Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data

Survival traits and selective genotyping datasets are typically not normally distributed, thus common models used to identify QTL may not be statistically appropriate for their analysis. The objective of the present study was to compare models for identification of QTL associated with survival trait...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McElroy, Joseph P, Zhang, Wuyan, Koehler, Kenneth J, Lamont, Susan J, Dekkers, Jack CM
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17129564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-38-6-637
_version_ 1782167774465884160
author McElroy, Joseph P
Zhang, Wuyan
Koehler, Kenneth J
Lamont, Susan J
Dekkers, Jack CM
author_facet McElroy, Joseph P
Zhang, Wuyan
Koehler, Kenneth J
Lamont, Susan J
Dekkers, Jack CM
author_sort McElroy, Joseph P
collection PubMed
description Survival traits and selective genotyping datasets are typically not normally distributed, thus common models used to identify QTL may not be statistically appropriate for their analysis. The objective of the present study was to compare models for identification of QTL associated with survival traits, in particular when combined with selective genotyping. Data were simulated to model the survival distribution of a population of chickens challenged with Marek disease virus. Cox proportional hazards (CPH), linear regression (LR), and Weibull models were compared for their appropriateness to analyze the data, ability to identify associations of marker alleles with survival, and estimation of effects when all individuals were genotyped (full genotyping) and when selective genotyping was used. Little difference in power was found between the CPH and the LR model for low censoring cases for both full and selective genotyping. The simulated data were not transformed to follow a Weibull distribution and, as a result, the Weibull model generally resulted in less power than the other two models and overestimated effects. Effect estimates from LR and CPH were unbiased when all individuals were genotyped, but overestimated when selective genotyping was used. Thus, LR is preferred for analyzing survival data when the amount of censoring is low because of ease of implementation and interpretation. Including phenotypic data of non-genotyped individuals in selective genotyping analysis increased power, but resulted in LR having an inflated false positive rate, and therefore the CPH model is preferred for this scenario, although transformation of the data may also make the Weibull model appropriate for this case. The results from the research presented herein are directly applicable to interval mapping analyses.
format Text
id pubmed-2689268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26892682009-06-02 Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data McElroy, Joseph P Zhang, Wuyan Koehler, Kenneth J Lamont, Susan J Dekkers, Jack CM Genet Sel Evol Research Survival traits and selective genotyping datasets are typically not normally distributed, thus common models used to identify QTL may not be statistically appropriate for their analysis. The objective of the present study was to compare models for identification of QTL associated with survival traits, in particular when combined with selective genotyping. Data were simulated to model the survival distribution of a population of chickens challenged with Marek disease virus. Cox proportional hazards (CPH), linear regression (LR), and Weibull models were compared for their appropriateness to analyze the data, ability to identify associations of marker alleles with survival, and estimation of effects when all individuals were genotyped (full genotyping) and when selective genotyping was used. Little difference in power was found between the CPH and the LR model for low censoring cases for both full and selective genotyping. The simulated data were not transformed to follow a Weibull distribution and, as a result, the Weibull model generally resulted in less power than the other two models and overestimated effects. Effect estimates from LR and CPH were unbiased when all individuals were genotyped, but overestimated when selective genotyping was used. Thus, LR is preferred for analyzing survival data when the amount of censoring is low because of ease of implementation and interpretation. Including phenotypic data of non-genotyped individuals in selective genotyping analysis increased power, but resulted in LR having an inflated false positive rate, and therefore the CPH model is preferred for this scenario, although transformation of the data may also make the Weibull model appropriate for this case. The results from the research presented herein are directly applicable to interval mapping analyses. BioMed Central 2006-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2689268/ /pubmed/17129564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-38-6-637 Text en Copyright © 2006 INRA, EDP Sciences
spellingShingle Research
McElroy, Joseph P
Zhang, Wuyan
Koehler, Kenneth J
Lamont, Susan J
Dekkers, Jack CM
Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
title Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
title_full Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
title_fullStr Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
title_short Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
title_sort comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17129564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-38-6-637
work_keys_str_mv AT mcelroyjosephp comparisonofmethodsforanalysisofselectivegenotypingsurvivaldata
AT zhangwuyan comparisonofmethodsforanalysisofselectivegenotypingsurvivaldata
AT koehlerkennethj comparisonofmethodsforanalysisofselectivegenotypingsurvivaldata
AT lamontsusanj comparisonofmethodsforanalysisofselectivegenotypingsurvivaldata
AT dekkersjackcm comparisonofmethodsforanalysisofselectivegenotypingsurvivaldata