Nicodemus Kristin K, Luna Augustin, Shugart Yin Yao
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Jan;80(1):178-85. doi: 10.1086/510498. Epub 2006 Dec 7.
Researchers conducting family-based association studies have a wide variety of transmission/disequilibrium (TD)-based methods to choose from, but few guidelines exist in the selection of a particular method to apply to available data. Using a simulation study design, we compared the power and type I error of eight popular TD-based methods under different family structures, frequencies of missing parental data, genetic models, and population stratifications. No method was uniformly most powerful under all conditions, but type I error was appropriate for nearly every test statistic under all conditions. Power varied widely across methods, with a 46.5% difference in power observed between the most powerful and the least powerful method when 50% of families consisted of an affected sib pair and one parent genotyped under an additive genetic model and a 35.2% difference when 50% of families consisted of a single affection-discordant sibling pair without parental genotypes available under an additive genetic model. Methods were generally robust to population stratification, although some slightly less so than others. The choice of a TD-based test statistic should be dependent on the predominant family structure ascertained, the frequency of missing parental genotypes, and the assumed genetic model.
开展基于家系的关联研究的科研人员有多种基于传递/不平衡(TD)的方法可供选择,但在选择适用于现有数据的特定方法时几乎没有相关指南。我们采用模拟研究设计,比较了八种常用的基于TD的方法在不同家系结构、缺失亲代数据的频率、遗传模型和群体分层情况下的检验效能和I型错误。在所有条件下,没有一种方法始终是检验效能最高的,但在所有条件下,几乎每个检验统计量的I型错误都是合适的。不同方法的检验效能差异很大,当50%的家系由一个患病同胞对和一个已分型亲代组成,且遗传模型为加性模型时,检验效能最高的方法与最低的方法之间相差46.5%;当50%的家系由一对性状不一致的同胞对组成且无亲代基因型信息,遗传模型为加性模型时,这一差异为35.2%。尽管有些方法对群体分层的稳健性略逊于其他方法,但总体而言这些方法对群体分层具有稳健性。基于TD的检验统计量的选择应取决于所确定的主要家系结构、缺失亲代基因型的频率以及假定的遗传模型。