Literature DB >> 19344449

The cost effectiveness of duplicate genotyping for testing genetic association.

Nathan Tintle1, Derek Gordon, Dirk Van Bruggen, Stephen Finch.   

Abstract

We consider a modification to the traditional genome wide association (GWA) study design: duplicate genotyping. Duplicate genotyping (re-genotyping some of the samples) has long been suggested for quality control reasons; however, it has not been evaluated for its statistical cost-effectiveness. We demonstrate that when genotyping error rates are at least m%, duplicate genotyping provides a cost-effective (more statistical power for the same price) design alternative when relative genotype to phenotype/sample acquisition costs are no more than m%. In addition to cost and error rate, duplicate genotyping is most cost-effective for SNPs with low minor allele frequency. In general, relative genotype to phenotype/sample acquisition costs will be low when following up a limited number of SNPs in the second stage of a two-stage GWA study design, and, thus, duplicate genotyping may be useful in these situations. In cases where many SNPs are being followed up at the second stage, duplicate genotyping only low-quality SNPs with low minor allele frequency may be cost-effective. We also find that in almost all cases where duplicate genotyping is cost-effective, the most cost-effective design strategy involves duplicate genotyping all samples. Free software is provided which evaluates the cost-effectiveness of duplicate genotyping based on user inputs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19344449      PMCID: PMC2739690          DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2009.00516.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Hum Genet        ISSN: 0003-4800            Impact factor:   1.670


  27 in total

1.  What SNP genotyping errors are most costly for genetic association studies?

Authors:  Sun Jung Kang; Derek Gordon; Stephen J Finch
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.135

2.  Effects of differential genotyping error rate on the type I error probability of case-control studies.

Authors:  Valentina Moskvina; Nick Craddock; Peter Holmans; Michael J Owen; Michael C O'Donovan
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2006-04-06       Impact factor: 0.444

3.  Optimal two-stage genotyping designs for genome-wide association scans.

Authors:  Hansong Wang; Duncan C Thomas; Itsik Pe'er; Daniel O Stram
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 4.  Factors affecting statistical power in the detection of genetic association.

Authors:  Derek Gordon; Stephen J Finch
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 14.808

5.  Optimal designs for two-stage genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Andrew D Skol; Laura J Scott; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Michael Boehnke
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 6.  Successful design and conduct of genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Christopher I Amos
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 6.150

7.  Complement factor H polymorphism and age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Albert O Edwards; Robert Ritter; Kenneth J Abel; Alisa Manning; Carolien Panhuysen; Lindsay A Farrer
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-03-10       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Characteristics of replicated single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes from COGA: Affymetrix and Center for Inherited Disease Research.

Authors:  Nathan L Tintle; Kwangmi Ahn; Nancy Role Mendell; Derek Gordon; Stephen J Finch
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2005-12-30       Impact factor: 2.797

9.  Are molecular haplotypes worth the time and expense? A cost-effective method for applying molecular haplotypes.

Authors:  Mark A Levenstien; Jürg Ott; Derek Gordon
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2006-06-28       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Computing power and sample size for case-control association studies with copy number polymorphism: application of mixture-based likelihood ratio test.

Authors:  Wonkuk Kim; Derek Gordon; Jonathan Sebat; Kenny Q Ye; Stephen J Finch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  6 in total

1.  Spoiling the whole bunch: quality control aimed at preserving the integrity of high-throughput genotyping.

Authors:  Anna Pluzhnikov; Jennifer E Below; Anuar Konkashbaev; Anna Tikhomirov; Emily Kistner-Griffin; Cheryl A Roe; Dan L Nicolae; Nancy J Cox
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Incorporating duplicate genotype data into linear trend tests of genetic association: methods and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Bryce Borchers; Marshall Brown; Brian McLellan; Airat Bekmetjev; Nathan L Tintle
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2009-05-05

3.  Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study.

Authors:  Lin Hou; Ning Sun; Shrikant Mane; Fred Sayward; Nallakkandi Rajeevan; Kei-Hoi Cheung; Kelly Cho; Saiju Pyarajan; Mihaela Aslan; Perry Miller; Philip D Harvey; J Michael Gaziano; John Concato; Hongyu Zhao
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12-26       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  The cost-effectiveness of reclassification sampling for prevalence estimation.

Authors:  Airat Bekmetjev; Dirk VanBruggen; Brian McLellan; Benjamin DeWinkle; Eric Lunderberg; Nathan Tintle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The Association of Multiple Gene Variants with Ageing Skeletal Muscle Phenotypes in Elderly Women.

Authors:  Praval Khanal; Lingxiao He; Adam J Herbert; Georgina K Stebbings; Gladys L Onambele-Pearson; Hans Degens; Christopher I Morse; Martine Thomis; Alun G Williams
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-05       Impact factor: 4.096

6.  Polygenic Models Partially Predict Muscle Size and Strength but Not Low Muscle Mass in Older Women.

Authors:  Praval Khanal; Christopher I Morse; Lingxiao He; Adam J Herbert; Gladys L Onambélé-Pearson; Hans Degens; Martine Thomis; Alun G Williams; Georgina K Stebbings
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 4.141

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.