OBJECTIVES: Discrete blocks of low haplotype diversity exist within the human genome. The non-redundant subset of 'haplotype tagging' single nucleotide polymorphisms (htSNPs) in such blocks can distinguish a majority of the haplotypes. Several approaches have been proposed to determine htSNPs, ranging from visual inspection to formal analytic procedures. Optimal htSNPs can be estimated using a small subgroup of an association study population that have been genotyped for a dense SNP map, and it is just these htSNPs that are genotyped in the remainder of the samples. We investigated by simulation how the size of the subsample affects the power of association studies, and what type of subjects it should include. METHODS: We used the program tagSNPs [Stram et al., Hum Hered 2003;55:27-36], which selects htSNPs to minimize the uncertainty in predicting common haplotypes for individuals with unphased genotype data. RESULTS: On average, 27% of the SNPs were designated as htSNPs. Genotyping as few as 25 unphased individuals to select the htSNPs did not appear to reduce the power of an association study, as compared with using all SNPs. For the disease models considered, selecting htSNPs based on cases, controls, or a mixture of both gave similar results. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the genotyping effort in an association study can be substantially reduced with little loss of power by identifying htSNPs in a small subsample of individuals. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
OBJECTIVES: Discrete blocks of low haplotype diversity exist within the human genome. The non-redundant subset of 'haplotype tagging' single nucleotide polymorphisms (htSNPs) in such blocks can distinguish a majority of the haplotypes. Several approaches have been proposed to determine htSNPs, ranging from visual inspection to formal analytic procedures. Optimal htSNPs can be estimated using a small subgroup of an association study population that have been genotyped for a dense SNP map, and it is just these htSNPs that are genotyped in the remainder of the samples. We investigated by simulation how the size of the subsample affects the power of association studies, and what type of subjects it should include. METHODS: We used the program tagSNPs [Stram et al., Hum Hered 2003;55:27-36], which selects htSNPs to minimize the uncertainty in predicting common haplotypes for individuals with unphased genotype data. RESULTS: On average, 27% of the SNPs were designated as htSNPs. Genotyping as few as 25 unphased individuals to select the htSNPs did not appear to reduce the power of an association study, as compared with using all SNPs. For the disease models considered, selecting htSNPs based on cases, controls, or a mixture of both gave similar results. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the genotyping effort in an association study can be substantially reduced with little loss of power by identifying htSNPs in a small subsample of individuals. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
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
Authors: Jakob C Mueller; Elin Lõhmussaar; Reedik Mägi; Maido Remm; Thomas Bettecken; Peter Lichtner; Saskia Biskup; Thomas Illig; Arne Pfeufer; Jan Luedemann; Stefan Schreiber; Peter Pramstaller; Irene Pichler; Giovanni Romeo; Anthony Gaddi; Alessandra Testa; Heinz-Erich Wichmann; Andres Metspalu; Thomas Meitinger Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-01-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Gloria Ribas; Anna González-Neira; Antonio Salas; Roger L Milne; Ana Vega; Begoña Carracedo; Emilio González; Eva Barroso; Lara P Fernández; Patricio Yankilevich; Mercedes Robledo; Angel Carracedo; Javier Benítez Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2005-12-02 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: T H Beaty; M D Fallin; J B Hetmanski; I McIntosh; S S Chong; R Ingersoll; X Sheng; R Chakraborty; A F Scott Journal: Genetics Date: 2005-06-18 Impact factor: 4.562