Chun Li1, Mingyao Li, Ethan M Lange, Richard M Watanabe. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Center for Human Genetics Research, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. chun.li@vanderbilt.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are now feasible for studying the genetics underlying complex diseases. For many diseases, a list of candidate genes or regions exists and incorporation of such information into data analyses can potentially improve the power to detect disease variants. Traditional approaches for assessing the overall statistical significance of GWAS results ignore such information by inherently treating all markers equally. METHODS: We propose the prioritized subset analysis (PSA), in which a prioritized subset of markers is pre-selected from candidate regions, and the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure is carried out in the prioritized subset and its complementary subset, respectively. RESULTS: The PSA is more powerful than the whole-genome single-step FDR adjustment for a range of alternative models. The degree of power improvement depends on the fraction of associated SNPs in the prioritized subset and their nominal power, with higher fraction of associated SNPs and higher nominal power leading to more power improvement. The power improvement can be substantial; for disease loci not included in the prioritized subset, the power loss is almost negligible. CONCLUSION: The PSA has the flexibility of allowing investigators to combine prior information from a variety of sources, and will be a useful tool for GWAS. (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are now feasible for studying the genetics underlying complex diseases. For many diseases, a list of candidate genes or regions exists and incorporation of such information into data analyses can potentially improve the power to detect disease variants. Traditional approaches for assessing the overall statistical significance of GWAS results ignore such information by inherently treating all markers equally. METHODS: We propose the prioritized subset analysis (PSA), in which a prioritized subset of markers is pre-selected from candidate regions, and the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure is carried out in the prioritized subset and its complementary subset, respectively. RESULTS: The PSA is more powerful than the whole-genome single-step FDR adjustment for a range of alternative models. The degree of power improvement depends on the fraction of associated SNPs in the prioritized subset and their nominal power, with higher fraction of associated SNPs and higher nominal power leading to more power improvement. The power improvement can be substantial; for disease loci not included in the prioritized subset, the power loss is almost negligible. CONCLUSION: The PSA has the flexibility of allowing investigators to combine prior information from a variety of sources, and will be a useful tool for GWAS. (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: David A Hinds; Laura L Stuve; Geoffrey B Nilsen; Eran Halperin; Eleazar Eskin; Dennis G Ballinger; Kelly A Frazer; David R Cox Journal: Science Date: 2005-02-18 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Robert Sladek; Ghislain Rocheleau; Johan Rung; Christian Dina; Lishuang Shen; David Serre; Philippe Boutin; Daniel Vincent; Alexandre Belisle; Samy Hadjadj; Beverley Balkau; Barbara Heude; Guillaume Charpentier; Thomas J Hudson; Alexandre Montpetit; Alexey V Pshezhetsky; Marc Prentki; Barry I Posner; David J Balding; David Meyre; Constantin Polychronakos; Philippe Froguel Journal: Nature Date: 2007-02-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Struan F A Grant; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Inga Reynisdottir; Rafn Benediktsson; Andrei Manolescu; Jesus Sainz; Agnar Helgason; Hreinn Stefansson; Valur Emilsson; Anna Helgadottir; Unnur Styrkarsdottir; Kristinn P Magnusson; G Bragi Walters; Ebba Palsdottir; Thorbjorg Jonsdottir; Thorunn Gudmundsdottir; Arnaldur Gylfason; Jona Saemundsdottir; Robert L Wilensky; Muredach P Reilly; Daniel J Rader; Yu Bagger; Claus Christiansen; Vilmundur Gudnason; Gunnar Sigurdsson; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Augustine Kong; Kari Stefansson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-01-15 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Demetrius M Maraganore; Mariza de Andrade; Timothy G Lesnick; Kari J Strain; Matthew J Farrer; Walter A Rocca; P V Krishna Pant; Kelly A Frazer; David R Cox; Dennis G Ballinger Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Michael A Hauser; Yi-Ju Li; Satoshi Takeuchi; Robert Walters; Maher Noureddine; Melinda Maready; Tiffany Darden; Christine Hulette; Eden Martin; Elizabeth Hauser; Hong Xu; Don Schmechel; Judith E Stenger; Fred Dietrich; Jeffery Vance Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Kaisa Silander; Karen L Mohlke; Laura J Scott; Erin C Peck; Pablo Hollstein; Andrew D Skol; Anne U Jackson; Panagiotis Deloukas; Sarah Hunt; George Stavrides; Peter S Chines; Michael R Erdos; Narisu Narisu; Karen N Conneely; Chun Li; Tasha E Fingerlin; Sharanjeet K Dhanjal; Timo T Valle; Richard N Bergman; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Richard M Watanabe; Michael Boehnke; Francis S Collins Journal: Diabetes Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: James MacKillop; Joshua C Gray; Jessica Weafer; Sandra Sanchez-Roige; Abraham A Palmer; Harriet de Wit Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Eric C Wooten; Lakshmanan K Iyer; Maria Claudia Montefusco; Alyson Kelley Hedgepeth; Douglas D Payne; Navin K Kapur; David E Housman; Michael E Mendelsohn; Gordon S Huggins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-21 Impact factor: 3.240