4.7 Article

Improving power and accuracy of genome-wide association studies via a multi-locus mixed linear model methodology

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep19444

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31571268, 31301004]
  2. Huazhong Agricultural University Scientific and Technological Self-innovation Foundation [2014RC020]
  3. United States National Science Foundation Grant [005400]
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1458515] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been widely used in genetic dissection of complex traits. However, common methods are all based on a fixed-SNP-effect mixed linear model (MLM) and single marker analysis, such as efficient mixed model analysis (EMMA). These methods require Bonferroni correction for multiple tests, which often is too conservative when the number of markers is extremely large. To address this concern, we proposed a random-SNP-effect MLM (RMLM) and a multi-locus RMLM (MRMLM) for GWAS. The RMLM simply treats the SNP-effect as random, but it allows a modified Bonferroni correction to be used to calculate the threshold p value for significance tests. The MRMLM is a multi-locus model including markers selected from the RMLM method with a less stringent selection criterion. Due to the multi-locus nature, no multiple test correction is needed. Simulation studies show that the MRMLM is more powerful in QTN detection and more accurate in QTN effect estimation than the RMLM, which in turn is more powerful and accurate than the EMMA. To demonstrate the new methods, we analyzed six flowering time related traits in Arabidopsis thaliana and detected more genes than previous reported using the EMMA. Therefore, the MRMLM provides an alternative for multi-locus GWAS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available