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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |