4.6 Article

A Kinship-Based Modification of the Armitage Trend Test to Address Hidden Population Structure and Small Differential Genotyping Errors

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005825

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA17054-27A2, P01 CA017054] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [P50 HG002790, P50 HG002790-01A1] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NHLBI NIH HHS [U01 HL084705-01] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM069890-01A1, R01 GM069890] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: We propose a modification of the well-known Armitage trend test to address the problems associated with hidden population structure and hidden relatedness in genome-wide case-control association studies. Methods: The new test adopts beneficial traits from three existing testing strategies: the principal components, mixed model, and genomic control while avoiding some of their disadvantageous characteristics, such as the tendency of the principal components method to over-correct in certain situations or the failure of the genomic control approach to reorder the adjusted tests based on their degree of alignment with the underlying hidden structure. The new procedure is based on Gauss-Markov estimators derived from a straightforward linear model with an imposed variance structure proportional to an empirical relatedness matrix. Lastly, conceptual and analytical similarities to and distinctions from other approaches are emphasized throughout. Results: Our simulations show that the power performance of the proposed test is quite promising compared to the considered competing strategies. The power gains are especially large when small differential differences between cases and controls are present; a likely scenario when public controls are used in multiple studies. Conclusion: The proposed modified approach attains high power more consistently than that of the existing commonly implemented tests. Its performance improvement is most apparent when small but detectable systematic differences between cases and controls exist.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据