4.2 Article

Comparison of Twin and Extended Pedigree Designs for Obtaining Heritability Estimates

Journal

BEHAVIOR GENETICS
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 461-466

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10519-015-9720-z

Keywords

Twin design; Pedigree design; Power; Heritability; Simulation

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG022381, AG018384, AG018386, AG022982]
  2. National Center for Research Resources [P41-RR14075]
  3. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR BIRN Morphometric Project) [BIRN002]
  4. National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [R01EB006758]
  5. National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS052585-01]
  6. Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery (MIND) Institute, part of the National Alliance for Medical Image Computing (NAMIC) - National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research [U54 EB005149]
  7. Autism and Dyslexia Project - Ellison Medical Foundation
  8. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores power assumptions relating to extended pedigree designs (EPD) and classical twin designs (CTD). We conducted statistical analyses to compare the power of the two designs for examining neuroimaging phenotypes, varying heritability and varying whether shared environmental variance is fixed or free. Results indicated that CTDs have more power to estimate heritability, with the exception of one condition: in EPDs, the power increases relative to CTDs when shared environmental variance contributes to sibling similarity only. We additionally show that assuming a priori that shared environmental effects play no role in a phenotype-as is commonly done in pedigree designs-can lead to substantially biased heritability estimates. General results indicate that both CTDs and EPDs obtain quite precise heritability estimates. Finally, we discuss methodological considerations relating to assumptions about age effects and shared environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available