Cargando…

The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS

BACKGROUND: In recent years, genome wide association studies have identified many genetic variants that are consistently associated with common complex diseases, but the amount of heritability explained by these risk alleles is still low. Part of the missing heritability may be due to genetic hetero...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Waltoft, Berit Lindum, Pedersen, Carsten Bøcker, Nyegaard, Mette, Hobolth, Asger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593225/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26319230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12881-015-0210-1
_version_ 1782393298579619840
author Waltoft, Berit Lindum
Pedersen, Carsten Bøcker
Nyegaard, Mette
Hobolth, Asger
author_facet Waltoft, Berit Lindum
Pedersen, Carsten Bøcker
Nyegaard, Mette
Hobolth, Asger
author_sort Waltoft, Berit Lindum
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In recent years, genome wide association studies have identified many genetic variants that are consistently associated with common complex diseases, but the amount of heritability explained by these risk alleles is still low. Part of the missing heritability may be due to genetic heterogeneity and small sample sizes, but non-optimal study designs in many genome wide association studies may also have contributed to the failure of identifying gene variants causing a predisposition to disease. The normally used odds ratio from a classical case-control study measures the association between genotype and being diseased. In comparison, under incidence density sampling, the incidence rate ratio measures the association between genotype and becoming diseased. We estimate the differences between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio under the presence of events precluding the disease of interest. Such events may arise due to pleiotropy and are known as competing events. In addition, we investigate how these differences impact the association test. METHODS: We simulate life spans of individuals whose gene variants are subject to competing events. To estimate the association between genotype and disease, we applied classical case-control studies and incidence density sampling. RESULTS: We find significant numerical differences between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio when the fact that gene variant may be associated with competing events, e.g. lifetime, is ignored. The only scenario showing little or no difference is an association with a rare disease and no other present associations. Furthermore, we find that p-values for association tests differed between the two study designs. CONCLUSIONS: If the interest is on the aetiology of the disease, a design based on incidence density sampling provides the preferred interpretation of the estimate. Under a classical case-control design and in the presence of competing events, the change in p-values in the association test may lead to false positive findings and, more importantly, false negative findings. The ranking of the SNPs according to p-values may differ between the two study designs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12881-015-0210-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4593225
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45932252015-10-06 The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS Waltoft, Berit Lindum Pedersen, Carsten Bøcker Nyegaard, Mette Hobolth, Asger BMC Med Genet Technical Advance BACKGROUND: In recent years, genome wide association studies have identified many genetic variants that are consistently associated with common complex diseases, but the amount of heritability explained by these risk alleles is still low. Part of the missing heritability may be due to genetic heterogeneity and small sample sizes, but non-optimal study designs in many genome wide association studies may also have contributed to the failure of identifying gene variants causing a predisposition to disease. The normally used odds ratio from a classical case-control study measures the association between genotype and being diseased. In comparison, under incidence density sampling, the incidence rate ratio measures the association between genotype and becoming diseased. We estimate the differences between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio under the presence of events precluding the disease of interest. Such events may arise due to pleiotropy and are known as competing events. In addition, we investigate how these differences impact the association test. METHODS: We simulate life spans of individuals whose gene variants are subject to competing events. To estimate the association between genotype and disease, we applied classical case-control studies and incidence density sampling. RESULTS: We find significant numerical differences between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio when the fact that gene variant may be associated with competing events, e.g. lifetime, is ignored. The only scenario showing little or no difference is an association with a rare disease and no other present associations. Furthermore, we find that p-values for association tests differed between the two study designs. CONCLUSIONS: If the interest is on the aetiology of the disease, a design based on incidence density sampling provides the preferred interpretation of the estimate. Under a classical case-control design and in the presence of competing events, the change in p-values in the association test may lead to false positive findings and, more importantly, false negative findings. The ranking of the SNPs according to p-values may differ between the two study designs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12881-015-0210-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4593225/ /pubmed/26319230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12881-015-0210-1 Text en © Waltoft et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Waltoft, Berit Lindum
Pedersen, Carsten Bøcker
Nyegaard, Mette
Hobolth, Asger
The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS
title The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS
title_full The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS
title_fullStr The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS
title_full_unstemmed The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS
title_short The importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in GWAS
title_sort importance of distinguishing between the odds ratio and the incidence rate ratio in gwas
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593225/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26319230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12881-015-0210-1
work_keys_str_mv AT waltoftberitlindum theimportanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT pedersencarstenbøcker theimportanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT nyegaardmette theimportanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT hobolthasger theimportanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT waltoftberitlindum importanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT pedersencarstenbøcker importanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT nyegaardmette importanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas
AT hobolthasger importanceofdistinguishingbetweentheoddsratioandtheincidencerateratioingwas