4.7 Article

Accounting for multiple comparisons in a genome-wide association study (GWAS)

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-724

关键词

-

资金

  1. NationalCancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [HHSN261200800001E]
  2. NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As we enter an era when testing millions of SNPs in a single gene association study will become the standard, consideration of multiple comparisons is an essential part of determining statistical significance. Bonferroni adjustments can be made but are conservative due to the preponderance of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between genetic markers, and permutation testing is not always a viable option. Three major classes of corrections have been proposed to correct the dependent nature of genetic data in Bonferroni adjustments: permutation testing and related alternatives, principal components analysis (PCA), and analysis of blocks of LD across the genome. We consider seven implementations of these commonly used methods using data from 1514 European American participants genotyped for 700,078 SNPs in a GWAS for AIDS. Results: A Bonferroni correction using the number of LD blocks found by the three algorithms implemented by Haploview resulted in an insufficiently conservative threshold, corresponding to a genome-wide significance level of alpha = 0.15 0.20. We observed a moderate increase in power when using PRESTO, SLIDE, and simpleM when compared with traditional Bonferroni methods for population data genotyped on the Affymetrix 6.0 platform in European Americans (alpha = 0.05 thresholds between 1 x 10(-7) and 7 x 10(-8)). Conclusions: Correcting for the number of LD blocks resulted in an anti-conservative Bonferroni adjustment. SLIDE and simpleM are particularly useful when using a statistical test not handled in optimized permutation testing packages, and genome-wide corrected p-values using SLIDE, are much easier to interpret for consumers of GWAS studies.

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