Hodge S E
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York.
Am J Hum Genet. 1993 Aug;53(2):367-84.
Human genetics researchers have been intrigued for many years by weak-to-moderate associations between markers and diseases. However, in most cases of association, the cause of this phenomenon is still not known. Recently, interest has grown in pursuing association studies for complex diseases, either instead of or in addition to linkage studies. Hence, it is timely to reconsider what a disease-marker association, particularly in the weak-to-moderate range (relative risk < 10), can tell us about disease etiology. To this end, this study accomplishes three aims: (1) It formulates two different models explaining weak-to-moderate associations and derives the relationship between them. One is a linkage disequilibrium model, and the other is a "susceptibility," or pure association, model. The importance of drawing the distinction between these two models and the implications for our understanding of the genetics of human disease will also be discussed. It will be argued that the linkage disequilibrium model represents true linkage but that the susceptibility model does not. (2) It examines two family-based association tests proposed recently by Parsian et al. and Spielman et al. and derives formulas for their behavior under the two models described above. It demonstrates that these tests yield almost identical results under these two models. It shows that, whereas these tests can confirm an association, they cannot determine whether the association is caused by the linkage disequilibrium model or the susceptibility model. The study also characterizes the probabilities yielded by the family association tests in the presence of weak-to-moderate associations, which will aid researchers using these tests. (3) It proposes two approaches, both based on linkage analysis, which can distinguish between the two models described above. One approach involves a straightforward linkage analysis of the data; the other involves a partitioned association-linkage (PAL) test, as suggested by Greenberg. Formulas are derived for testing identity by descent in affected sib pairs by using both approaches. (4) Finally, the formulas and arguments are illustrated with two examples from the literature and one computer-simulated data set.
多年来,人类遗传学研究人员一直对标记与疾病之间弱至中等强度的关联很感兴趣。然而,在大多数关联案例中,这种现象的原因仍然不明。最近,对于复杂疾病开展关联研究的兴趣与日俱增,无论是替代连锁研究还是作为连锁研究的补充。因此,现在是时候重新思考疾病-标记关联,尤其是弱至中等强度范围(相对风险<10)的关联,能让我们了解到疾病病因的哪些方面。为此,本研究实现了三个目标:(1)它构建了两种不同的模型来解释弱至中等强度的关联,并推导它们之间的关系。一种是连锁不平衡模型,另一种是“易感性”或纯关联模型。还将讨论区分这两种模型的重要性以及对我们理解人类疾病遗传学的影响。将论证连锁不平衡模型代表真正的连锁,而易感性模型并非如此。(2)它检验了Parsian等人和Spielman等人最近提出的两种基于家系的关联检验,并推导了它们在上述两种模型下的行为公式。结果表明,在这两种模型下,这些检验产生的结果几乎相同。研究表明,虽然这些检验可以确认关联,但无法确定该关联是由连锁不平衡模型还是易感性模型引起的。该研究还刻画了在存在弱至中等强度关联的情况下家系关联检验产生的概率,这将有助于使用这些检验的研究人员。(3)它提出了两种基于连锁分析的方法,可区分上述两种模型。一种方法涉及对数据进行直接的连锁分析;另一种方法涉及Greenberg提出的分区关联-连锁(PAL)检验。推导了使用这两种方法在患病同胞对中检验同源性的公式。(4)最后,通过文献中的两个例子和一个计算机模拟数据集来说明这些公式和论证。