OBJECTIVE: Assess the differences in point estimates, power and type 1 error rates when accounting for and ignoring family structure in genetic tests of association. METHODS: We compare by simulation the performance of analytic models using variance components to account for family structure and regression models that ignore relatedness for a range of possible family based study designs (i.e., sib pairs vs. large sibships vs. nuclear families vs. extended families). RESULTS: Our analyses indicate that effect size estimates and power are not significantly affected by ignoring family structure. Type 1 error rates increase when family structure is ignored, as density of family structures increases, and as trait heritability increases. For discrete traits with moderate levels of heritability and across many common sampling designs, type 1 error rates rise from a nominal 0.05 to 0.11. CONCLUSION: Ignoring family structure may be useful in screening although it comes at a cost of a increased type 1 error rate, the magnitude of which depends on trait heritability and pedigree configuration. Copyright 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the differences in point estimates, power and type 1 error rates when accounting for and ignoring family structure in genetic tests of association. METHODS: We compare by simulation the performance of analytic models using variance components to account for family structure and regression models that ignore relatedness for a range of possible family based study designs (i.e., sib pairs vs. large sibships vs. nuclear families vs. extended families). RESULTS: Our analyses indicate that effect size estimates and power are not significantly affected by ignoring family structure. Type 1 error rates increase when family structure is ignored, as density of family structures increases, and as trait heritability increases. For discrete traits with moderate levels of heritability and across many common sampling designs, type 1 error rates rise from a nominal 0.05 to 0.11. CONCLUSION: Ignoring family structure may be useful in screening although it comes at a cost of a increased type 1 error rate, the magnitude of which depends on trait heritability and pedigree configuration. Copyright 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Robert J Klein; Caroline Zeiss; Emily Y Chew; Jen-Yue Tsai; Richard S Sackler; Chad Haynes; Alice K Henning; John Paul SanGiovanni; Shrikant M Mane; Susan T Mayne; Michael B Bracken; Frederick L Ferris; Jurg Ott; Colin Barnstable; Josephine Hoh Journal: Science Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Frank A Middleton; Marco G Trauzzi; Antony E Shrimpton; Karen L Gentile; Christopher P Morley; Helena Medeiros; Michele T Pato; Carlos N Pato Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Braxton D Mitchell; Patrick F McArdle; Haiqing Shen; Evadnie Rampersaud; Toni I Pollin; Lawrence F Bielak; Cashell Jaquish; Julie A Douglas; Marie-Hélène Roy-Gagnon; Paul Sack; Rosalie Naglieri; Scott Hines; Richard B Horenstein; Yen-Pei C Chang; Wendy Post; Kathleen A Ryan; Nga Hong Brereton; Ruth E Pakyz; John Sorkin; Coleen M Damcott; Jeffrey R O'Connell; Charles Mangano; Mary Corretti; Robert Vogel; William Herzog; Matthew R Weir; Patricia A Peyser; Alan R Shuldiner Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Christopher R D'Adamo; Valerie J Dawson; Kathleen A Ryan; Laura M Yerges-Armstrong; Richard D Semba; Nanette I Steinle; Braxton D Mitchell; Alan R Shuldiner; Patrick F McArdle Journal: J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics Date: 2016-12-22
Authors: Bhoom Suktitipat; Rasika A Mathias; Dhananjay Vaidya; Lisa R Yanek; J Hunter Young; Lewis C Becker; Diane M Becker; Alexander F Wilson; M Daniele Fallin Journal: Hum Hered Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 0.444
Authors: Tom Cattaert; Víctor Urrea; Adam C Naj; Lizzy De Lobel; Vanessa De Wit; Mao Fu; Jestinah M Mahachie John; Haiqing Shen; M Luz Calle; Marylyn D Ritchie; Todd L Edwards; Kristel Van Steen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 3.240