BACKGROUND: The P-value approach has been employed to prioritizing genome-wide association (GWA) scan signals, with a genome-wide significance defined by a prior P-value threshold, although this is not ideal. A rationale put forward is that the association signals rather should be expected to give less support for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are rare (with associated low-power tests) than for common SNPs with equivalent P-values, unless investigators believe, a priori, that rare causative variants contribute to the disease and have more pronounced effects. METHODS: Using data from a GWA scan for type 2 diabetes (1924 cases, 2938 controls, 393 453 SNPs), we compared P-values with four alternative signal measures: likelihood ratio (LR), Bayes factor (BF; with a specified prior distribution for true effects), 'frequentist factor' (FF; reflecting the ratio between estimated--post-data-- 'power' and P-value) and probability of pronounced effect size (PrPES). RESULTS: The 19 common SNPs [minor allele frequency (MAF) among the controls >29%] yielding strong P-value signals (P < 5 x 10(-7)) were also top ranked by the other approaches. There was a strong similarity between the P-values, LR and BF signals, in terms of ranking SNPs. In contrast, FF and PrPES signals down-weighted rare SNPs (control MAF <10%) with low P-values. CONCLUSIONS: For prioritization of signals that do not achieve compelling levels of evidence for association, the main driving force behind observed differences between the various association signals appears to be SNP MAF. The statistical power afforded by follow-up samples for establishing replication should be taken into account when tailoring the signal selection strategy.
BACKGROUND: The P-value approach has been employed to prioritizing genome-wide association (GWA) scan signals, with a genome-wide significance defined by a prior P-value threshold, although this is not ideal. A rationale put forward is that the association signals rather should be expected to give less support for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are rare (with associated low-power tests) than for common SNPs with equivalent P-values, unless investigators believe, a priori, that rare causative variants contribute to the disease and have more pronounced effects. METHODS: Using data from a GWA scan for type 2 diabetes (1924 cases, 2938 controls, 393 453 SNPs), we compared P-values with four alternative signal measures: likelihood ratio (LR), Bayes factor (BF; with a specified prior distribution for true effects), 'frequentist factor' (FF; reflecting the ratio between estimated--post-data-- 'power' and P-value) and probability of pronounced effect size (PrPES). RESULTS: The 19 common SNPs [minor allele frequency (MAF) among the controls >29%] yielding strong P-value signals (P < 5 x 10(-7)) were also top ranked by the other approaches. There was a strong similarity between the P-values, LR and BF signals, in terms of ranking SNPs. In contrast, FF and PrPES signals down-weighted rare SNPs (control MAF <10%) with low P-values. CONCLUSIONS: For prioritization of signals that do not achieve compelling levels of evidence for association, the main driving force behind observed differences between the various association signals appears to be SNP MAF. The statistical power afforded by follow-up samples for establishing replication should be taken into account when tailoring the signal selection strategy.
Authors: Eleftheria Zeggini; Michael N Weedon; Cecilia M Lindgren; Timothy M Frayling; Katherine S Elliott; Hana Lango; Nicholas J Timpson; John R B Perry; Nigel W Rayner; Rachel M Freathy; Jeffrey C Barrett; Beverley Shields; Andrew P Morris; Sian Ellard; Christopher J Groves; Lorna W Harries; Jonathan L Marchini; Katharine R Owen; Beatrice Knight; Lon R Cardon; Mark Walker; Graham A Hitman; Andrew D Morris; Alex S F Doney; Mark I McCarthy; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Science Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Ping Feng; Xiaojing Wang; Priscila L Casado; Erika C Küchler; Kathleen Deeley; Jacqueline Noel; Hyongsup Kimm; Ji-Hye Kim; Alex N Haas; Valquiria Quinelato; Leticia L Bonato; Jose M Granjeiro; Cristiano Susin; Alexandre R Vieira Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Ling Oei; Karol Estrada; Emma L Duncan; Claus Christiansen; Ching-Ti Liu; Bente L Langdahl; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; José A Riancho; Richard L Prince; Natasja M van Schoor; Eugene McCloskey; Yi-Hsiang Hsu; Evangelos Evangelou; Evangelia Ntzani; David M Evans; Nerea Alonso; Lise B Husted; Carmen Valero; Jose L Hernandez; Joshua R Lewis; Stephen K Kaptoge; Kun Zhu; L Adrienne Cupples; Carolina Medina-Gómez; Liesbeth Vandenput; Ghi Su Kim; Seung Hun Lee; Martha C Castaño-Betancourt; Edwin H G Oei; Josefina Martinez; Anna Daroszewska; Marjolein van der Klift; Dan Mellström; Lizbeth Herrera; Magnus K Karlsson; Albert Hofman; Östen Ljunggren; Huibert A P Pols; Lisette Stolk; Joyce B J van Meurs; John P A Ioannidis; M Carola Zillikens; Paul Lips; David Karasik; André G Uitterlinden; Unnur Styrkarsdottir; Matthew A Brown; Jung-Min Koh; J Brent Richards; Jonathan Reeve; Claes Ohlsson; Stuart H Ralston; Douglas P Kiel; Fernando Rivadeneira Journal: Bone Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.398