Critical values and variation in type I error along chromosomes in the COGA dataset using the applied pseudo-trait method

BACKGROUND: By analyzing a "pseudo-trait," a trait not linked or associated with any of the markers tested, the distribution of the test statistic under the null hypothesis can provide the critical value for the appropriate percentile of the distribution. In addition, the anecdotal observation that p-values tend to be more significant near the telomeres was investigated. RESULTS: The applied pseudo-trait (APT) method was applied to the Affymetrix and Illumina SNPs in the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism dataset to determine appropriate critical values for regression of offspring on mid-parent (ROMP) and Haseman-Elston association and linkage analyses, investigating the occurrence of type I errors in different chromosomal locations, and the extent to which the critical values obtained depend on the type of pseudo-trait used. CONCLUSION: On average, the 5 percentile critical values obtained for this study were less than the expected 0.05. The distribution of p-values does not seem to depend on chromosomal position for ROMP association analysis methods, but does in some cases for Haseman-Elston linkage analysis. Results vary with different pseudo-traits

Allele frequency misspecification: effect on power and Type I error of model-dependent linkage analysis of quantitative traits under random ascertainment

BACKGROUND: Studies of model-based linkage analysis show that trait or marker model misspecification leads to decreasing power or increasing Type I error rate. An increase in Type I error rate is seen when marker related parameters (e.g., allele frequencies) are misspecified and ascertainment is through the trait, but lod-score methods are expected to be robust when ascertainment is random (as is often the case in linkage studies of quantitative traits). In previous studies, the power of lod-score linkage analysis using the "correct" generating model for the trait was found to increase when the marker allele frequencies were misspecified and parental data were missing. An investigation of Type I error rates, conducted in the absence of parental genotype data and with misspecification of marker allele frequencies, showed that an inflation in Type I error rate was the cause of at least part of this apparent increased power. To investigate whether the observed inflation in Type I error rate in model-based LOD score linkage was due to sampling variation, the trait model was estimated from each sample using REGCHUNT, an automated segregation analysis program used to fit models by maximum likelihood using many different sets of initial parameter estimates. RESULTS: The Type I error rates observed using the trait models generated by REGCHUNT were usually closer to the nominal levels than those obtained when assuming the generating trait model. CONCLUSION: This suggests that the observed inflation of Type I error upon misspecification of marker allele frequencies is at least partially due to sampling variation. Thus, with missing parental genotype data, lod-score linkage is not as robust to misspecification of marker allele frequencies as has been commonly thought

Comparison of results from tests of association in unrelated individuals with uncollapsed and collapsed sequence variants using tiled regression

Tiled regression is an approach designed to determine the set of independent genetic variants that contribute to the variation of a quantitative trait in the presence of many highly correlated variants. In this study, we evaluate the statistical properties of the tiled regression method using the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 data in unrelated individuals for traits Q1, Q2, and Q4. To increase the power to detect rare variants, we use two methods to collapse rare variants and compare the results with those from the uncollapsed data. In addition, we compare the tiled regression method to traditional tests of association with and without collapsed rare variants. The results show that collapsing rare variants generally improves the power to detect associations regardless of method, although only variants with the largest allelic effects could be detected. However, for traditional simple linear regression, the average estimated type I error is dependent on the trait and varies by about three orders of magnitude. The estimated type I error rate is stable for tiled regression across traits

Importance sampling method of correction for multiple testing in affected sib-pair linkage analysis

Using the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 simulated data set, we compared the technique of importance sampling to several other methods designed to adjust p-values for multiple testing: the Bonferroni correction, the method proposed by Feingold et al., and naïve Monte Carlo simulation. We performed affected sib-pair linkage analysis for each of the 100 replicates for each of five binary traits and adjusted the derived p-values using each of the correction methods. The type I error rates for each correction method and the ability of each of the methods to detect loci known to influence trait values were compared. All of the methods considered were conservative with respect to type I error, especially the Bonferroni method. The ability of these methods to detect trait loci was also low. However, this may be partially due to a limitation inherent in our binary trait definitions

Importance sampling method of correction for multiple testing in affected sib-pair linkage analysis.

Using the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 simulated data set, we compared the technique of importance sampling to several other methods designed to adjust p-values for multiple testing: the Bonferroni correction, the method proposed by Feingold et al., and naïve Monte Carlo simulation. We performed affected sib-pair linkage analysis for each of the 100 replicates for each of five binary traits and adjusted the derived p-values using each of the correction methods. The type I error rates for each correction method and the ability of each of the methods to detect loci known to influence trait values were compared. All of the methods considered were conservative with respect to type I error, especially the Bonferroni method. The ability of these methods to detect trait loci was also low. However, this may be partially due to a limitation inherent in our binary trait definitions