Literature DB >> 14566096

Modeling and E-M estimation of haplotype-specific relative risks from genotype data for a case-control study of unrelated individuals.

Daniel O Stram1, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Phillip Bretsky, Matthew Freedman, Joel N Hirschhorn, David Altshuler, Laurence N Kolonel, Brian E Henderson, Duncan C Thomas.   

Abstract

The US National Cancer Institute has recently sponsored the formation of a Cohort Consortium (http://2002.cancer.gov/scpgenes.htm) to facilitate the pooling of data on very large numbers of people, concerning the effects of genes and environment on cancer incidence. One likely goal of these efforts will be generate a large population-based case-control series for which a number of candidate genes will be investigated using SNP haplotype as well as genotype analysis. The goal of this paper is to outline the issues involved in choosing a method of estimating haplotype-specific risk estimates for such data that is technically appropriate and yet attractive to epidemiologists who are already comfortable with odds ratios and logistic regression. Our interest is to develop and evaluate extensions of methods, based on haplotype imputation, that have been recently described (Schaid et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2002, and Zaykin et al., Hum Hered, 2002) as providing score tests of the null hypothesis of no effect of SNP haplotypes upon risk, which may be used for more complex tasks, such as providing confidence intervals, and tests of equivalence of haplotype-specific risks in two or more separate populations. In order to do so we (1) develop a cohort approach towards odds ratio analysis by expanding the E-M algorithm to provide maximum likelihood estimates of haplotype-specific odds ratios as well as genotype frequencies; (2) show how to correct the cohort approach, to give essentially unbiased estimates for population-based or nested case-control studies by incorporating the probability of selection as a case or control into the likelihood, based on a simplified model of case and control selection, and (3) finally, in an example data set (CYP17 and breast cancer, from the Multiethnic Cohort Study) we compare likelihood-based confidence interval estimates from the two methods with each other, and with the use of the single-imputation approach of Zaykin et al. applied under both null and alternative hypotheses. We conclude that so long as haplotypes are well predicted by SNP genotypes (we use the Rh2 criteria of Stram et al. [1]) the differences between the three methods are very small and in particular that the single imputation method may be expected to work extremely well. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14566096     DOI: 10.1159/000073202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Hered        ISSN: 0001-5652            Impact factor:   0.444


  100 in total

1.  Inference on haplotype effects in case-control studies using unphased genotype data.

Authors:  Michael P Epstein; Glen A Satten
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-11-20       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Optimal haplotype block-free selection of tagging SNPs for genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Bjarni V Halldórsson; Vineet Bafna; Ross Lippert; Russell Schwartz; Francisco M De La Vega; Andrew G Clark; Sorin Istrail
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 9.043

3.  A general framework for studying genetic effects and gene-environment interactions with missing data.

Authors:  Y J Hu; D Y Lin; D Zeng
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 4.  Large recursive partitioning analysis of complex disease pharmacogenetic studies. II. Statistical considerations.

Authors:  Dmitri V Zaykin; S Stanley Young
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.533

5.  Regression-based association analysis with clustered haplotypes through use of genotypes.

Authors:  Jung-Ying Tzeng; Chih-Hao Wang; Jau-Tsuen Kao; Chuhsing Kate Hsiao
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2005-12-19       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 6.  Recent developments in genomewide association scans: a workshop summary and review.

Authors:  Duncan C Thomas; Robert W Haile; David Duggan
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Analysis of case-control studies of genetic and environmental factors with missing genetic information and haplotype-phase ambiguity.

Authors:  Christine Spinka; Raymond J Carroll; Nilanjan Chatterjee
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.135

8.  Contrasting linkage-disequilibrium patterns between cases and controls as a novel association-mapping method.

Authors:  Dmitri V Zaykin; Zhaoling Meng; Margaret G Ehm
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  A flexible Bayesian framework for modeling haplotype association with disease, allowing for dominance effects of the underlying causative variants.

Authors:  Andrew P Morris
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-08-31       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Discovery of common human genetic variants of GTP cyclohydrolase 1 (GCH1) governing nitric oxide, autonomic activity, and cardiovascular risk.

Authors:  Lian Zhang; Fangwen Rao; Kuixing Zhang; Srikrishna Khandrika; Madhusudan Das; Sucheta M Vaingankar; Xuping Bao; Brinda K Rana; Douglas W Smith; Jennifer Wessel; Rany M Salem; Juan L Rodriguez-Flores; Sushil K Mahata; Nicholas J Schork; Michael G Ziegler; Daniel T O'Connor
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 14.808

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.