4.7 Article

Optimal Unified Approach for Rare-Variant Association Testing with Application to Small-Sample Case-Control Whole-Exome Sequencing Studies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 91, 期 2, 页码 224-237

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.06.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mary Beryl Patch Turnbull Scholar Program
  2. NHLBI
  3. NHLBI [RC2 HL-103010, RC2 HL-102923, RC2 HL-102924, RC2 HL-102925, RC2 HL-102926]
  4. [R37 CA076404]
  5. [PO1 CA134294]
  6. [RC2 HL101779]
  7. [R01HL060710]
  8. [UC2HL102923]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose in this paper a unified approach for testing the association between rare variants and phenotypes in sequencing association studies. This approach maximizes power by adaptively using the data to optimally combine the burden test and the nonburden sequence kernel association test (SKAT). Burden tests are more powerful when most variants in a region are causal and the effects are in the same direction, whereas SKAT is more powerful when a large fraction of the variants in a region are noncausal or the effects of causal variants are in different directions. The proposed unified test maintains the power in both scenarios. We show that the unified test corresponds to the optimal test in an extended family of SKAT tests, which we refer to as SKAT-O. The second goal of this paper is to develop a small-sample adjustment procedure for the proposed methods for the correction of conservative type I error rates of SKAT family tests when the trait of interest is dichotomous and the sample size is small. Both small-sample-adjusted SKAT and the optimal unified test (SKAT-O) are computationally efficient and can easily be applied to genome-wide sequencing association studies. We evaluate the finite sample performance of the proposed methods using extensive simulation studies and illustrate their application using the acute-lung-injury exome-sequencing data of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Exome Sequencing Project.

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

4.7
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