Cargando…

Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits

Studying population isolates with large, complex pedigrees has many advantages for discovering genetic susceptibility loci; however, statistical analyses can be computationally challenging. Allelic association tests need to be corrected for relatedness among study participants, and linkage analyses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cummings, Anna C., Torstenson, Eric, Davis, Mary F., D’Aoust, Laura N., Scott, William K., Pericak-Vance, Margaret A., Bush, William S., Haines, Jonathan L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23658753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062615
_version_ 1782268403195576320
author Cummings, Anna C.
Torstenson, Eric
Davis, Mary F.
D’Aoust, Laura N.
Scott, William K.
Pericak-Vance, Margaret A.
Bush, William S.
Haines, Jonathan L.
author_facet Cummings, Anna C.
Torstenson, Eric
Davis, Mary F.
D’Aoust, Laura N.
Scott, William K.
Pericak-Vance, Margaret A.
Bush, William S.
Haines, Jonathan L.
author_sort Cummings, Anna C.
collection PubMed
description Studying population isolates with large, complex pedigrees has many advantages for discovering genetic susceptibility loci; however, statistical analyses can be computationally challenging. Allelic association tests need to be corrected for relatedness among study participants, and linkage analyses require subdividing and simplifying the pedigree structures. We have extended GenomeSIMLA to simulate SNP data in complex pedigree structures based on an Amish pedigree to generate the same structure and distribution of sampled individuals. We evaluated type 1 error rates when no disease SNP was simulated and power when disease SNPs with recessive, additive, and dominant modes of inheritance and odds ratios of 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, and 5.0 were simulated. We generated subpedigrees with a maximum bit-size of 24 using PedCut and performed two-point and multipoint linkage using Merlin. We also ran MQLS on the subpedigrees and unified pedigree. We saw no inflation of type 1 error when running MQLS on either the whole pedigrees or the sub-pedigrees, and we saw low type 1 error for two-point and multipoint linkage. Power was reduced when running MQLS on the subpedigrees versus the whole pedigree, and power was low for two-point and multipoint linkage analyses of the subpedigrees. These data suggest that MQLS has appropriate type 1 error rates in our Amish pedigree structure, and while type 1 error does not seem to be affected when dividing the pedigree prior to linkage analysis, power to detect linkage is diminished when the pedigree is divided.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3643945
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36439452013-05-08 Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits Cummings, Anna C. Torstenson, Eric Davis, Mary F. D’Aoust, Laura N. Scott, William K. Pericak-Vance, Margaret A. Bush, William S. Haines, Jonathan L. PLoS One Research Article Studying population isolates with large, complex pedigrees has many advantages for discovering genetic susceptibility loci; however, statistical analyses can be computationally challenging. Allelic association tests need to be corrected for relatedness among study participants, and linkage analyses require subdividing and simplifying the pedigree structures. We have extended GenomeSIMLA to simulate SNP data in complex pedigree structures based on an Amish pedigree to generate the same structure and distribution of sampled individuals. We evaluated type 1 error rates when no disease SNP was simulated and power when disease SNPs with recessive, additive, and dominant modes of inheritance and odds ratios of 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, and 5.0 were simulated. We generated subpedigrees with a maximum bit-size of 24 using PedCut and performed two-point and multipoint linkage using Merlin. We also ran MQLS on the subpedigrees and unified pedigree. We saw no inflation of type 1 error when running MQLS on either the whole pedigrees or the sub-pedigrees, and we saw low type 1 error for two-point and multipoint linkage. Power was reduced when running MQLS on the subpedigrees versus the whole pedigree, and power was low for two-point and multipoint linkage analyses of the subpedigrees. These data suggest that MQLS has appropriate type 1 error rates in our Amish pedigree structure, and while type 1 error does not seem to be affected when dividing the pedigree prior to linkage analysis, power to detect linkage is diminished when the pedigree is divided. Public Library of Science 2013-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3643945/ /pubmed/23658753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062615 Text en © 2013 Cummings et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cummings, Anna C.
Torstenson, Eric
Davis, Mary F.
D’Aoust, Laura N.
Scott, William K.
Pericak-Vance, Margaret A.
Bush, William S.
Haines, Jonathan L.
Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits
title Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits
title_full Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits
title_fullStr Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits
title_short Evaluating Power and Type 1 Error in Large Pedigree Analyses of Binary Traits
title_sort evaluating power and type 1 error in large pedigree analyses of binary traits
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23658753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062615
work_keys_str_mv AT cummingsannac evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT torstensoneric evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT davismaryf evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT daoustlauran evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT scottwilliamk evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT pericakvancemargareta evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT bushwilliams evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits
AT hainesjonathanl evaluatingpowerandtype1errorinlargepedigreeanalysesofbinarytraits