4.0 Article

Allowing for missing data at highly polymorphic genes when testing for maternal, offspring and maternal-fetal genotype incompatibility effects

期刊

HUMAN HEREDITY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 165-174

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000096444

关键词

family-based study; association; identity by state; missing data; maternal-fetal genotype incompatibility

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM53275] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM053275] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genes can be associated with disease through an individual's inherited genotype, the maternal genotype or the interaction between these two. When the gene is highly polymorphic, it is more difficult to identify the gene's functional role than for less polymorphic loci, because different alleles at the locus may be associated with the disease through separate and joint effects from maternal and offspring genotypes. Family-based studies are used to test genetic associations because of their robustness to population stratification. However, parental genotype data are often missing, and omitting incompletely genotyped families is inefficient. Methods have been proposed to accommodate incomplete families in family-based association studies. They are not easily generalized to allow simultaneous examination of offspring allelic, maternal allelic and maternal- fetal genotype (MFG) incompatibility effects. Since many MFG incompatibility effects occur through matching between maternal and offspring's genotypes, we present an identity-by-state (IBS) framework to incorporate incomplete families in the MFG test when modeling genetic effects produced by a polymorphic gene. Using simulations, we examine the MFG test's performance with incomplete parental genotype data and an IBS framework. The MFG test using the IBS framework is immune to population stratification and efficiently uses information from incomplete families. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.0
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