4.2 Article

Statistical power of association using the extreme discordant phenotype design

期刊

PHARMACOGENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 401-413

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.fpc.0000204995.99429.0f

关键词

extreme discordant phenotype; environmental exposure; selective genotyping; statistical power; association study

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30 ES06096] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Selective genotyping has been proven to be an effective design for mapping quantitative trait loci (QTL), either by linkage or by allelic association, wherein the individual trait values can be used as the indices for phenotype selection. It has also been proposed that association studies of dichotomous traits can benefit from such design. When there is no quantitative measurement for phenotype available, cases and/or controls having extreme discordant phenotypes (EDP) can still be selected, based on their exposure status to a drug toxicity or environmental risk factor. The advantage of EDP design is intuitive and it has been successfully used in a number of studies. Methods In this report, we developed a statistical method to calculate the power of EDP methodology, using a mixture model of genotype-specific distributions of a single biallelic susceptibility locus. We also compared the power of three statistical tests commonly used in association studies - including the chi(2) test of allelic frequencies, the chi(2) test of genotype frequencies, and the Armitage trend test. The power of two different EDP designs was evaluated under a range of scenarios. Results and conclusion Our results indicate that the chi(2) test of genotype frequency is a robust, though less powerful, test for single-locus association, and that EDP methodology is a powerful design for genetic association studies - especially those of common diseases caused by quantifiable drug toxicity or environmental risk factors. (C) 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.2
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