4.4 Article

A systematic search for SNPs/haplotypes associated with disease phenotypes using a haplotype-based stepwise procedure

期刊

BMC GENETICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-9-90

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI [5 R01 CA106320-05, 5 P01 CA53996-24, 1 R01 CA112512-01]
  2. NHLBI [K23HL69860]
  3. American Lung Association of Washington Research
  4. National Marrow Donor Program (Amy Strelzer Manasevit Research Award)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Genotyping technologies enable us to genotype multiple Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) within selected genes/regions, providing data for haplotype association analysis. While haplotype-based association analysis is powerful for detecting untyped causal alleles in linkage-disequilibrium (LD) with neighboring SNPs/haplotypes, the inclusion of extraneous SNPs could reduce its power by increasing the number of haplotypes with each additional SNP. Methods: Here, we propose a haplotype-based stepwise procedure (HBSP) to eliminate extraneous SNPs. To evaluate its properties, we applied HBSP to both simulated and real data, generated from a study of genetic associations of the bactericidal/permeability-increasing (BPI) gene with pulmonary function in a cohort of patients following bone marrow transplantation. Results: Under the null hypothesis, use of the HBSP gave results that retained the desired false positive error rates when multiple comparisons were considered. Under various alternative hypotheses, HBSP had adequate power to detect modest genetic associations in case-control studies with 500, 1,000 or 2,000 subjects. In the current application, HBSP led to the identification of two specific SNPs with a positive validation. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that HBSP retains the essence of haplotype-based association analysis while improving analytic power by excluding extraneous SNPs. Minimizing the number of SNPs also enables simpler interpretation and more cost-effective applications.

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

4.4
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