Liang Goh1, Von Bing Yap. 1. Cancer & Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore. liang.goh@duke-nus.edu.sg
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative trait loci analysis assumes that the trait is normally distributed. In reality, this is often not observed and one strategy is to transform the trait. However, it is not clear how much normality is required and which transformation works best in association studies. RESULTS: We performed simulations on four types of common quantitative traits to evaluate the effects of normalization using the logarithm, Box-Cox, and rank-based transformations. The impact of sample size and genetic effects on normalization is also investigated. Our results show that rank-based transformation gives generally the best and consistent performance in identifying the causal polymorphism and ranking it highly in association tests, with a slight increase in false positive rate. CONCLUSION: For small sample size or genetic effects, the improvement in sensitivity for rank transformation outweighs the slight increase in false positive rate. However, for large sample size and genetic effects, normalization may not be necessary since the increase in sensitivity is relatively modest.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative trait loci analysis assumes that the trait is normally distributed. In reality, this is often not observed and one strategy is to transform the trait. However, it is not clear how much normality is required and which transformation works best in association studies. RESULTS: We performed simulations on four types of common quantitative traits to evaluate the effects of normalization using the logarithm, Box-Cox, and rank-based transformations. The impact of sample size and genetic effects on normalization is also investigated. Our results show that rank-based transformation gives generally the best and consistent performance in identifying the causal polymorphism and ranking it highly in association tests, with a slight increase in false positive rate. CONCLUSION: For small sample size or genetic effects, the improvement in sensitivity for rank transformation outweighs the slight increase in false positive rate. However, for large sample size and genetic effects, normalization may not be necessary since the increase in sensitivity is relatively modest.
Authors: Paul I W de Bakker; Manuel A R Ferreira; Xiaoming Jia; Benjamin M Neale; Soumya Raychaudhuri; Benjamin F Voight Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Maria Chiara Di Bernardo; Dalemari Crowther-Swanepoel; Peter Broderick; Emily Webb; Gabrielle Sellick; Ruth Wild; Kate Sullivan; Jayaram Vijayakrishnan; Yufei Wang; Alan M Pittman; Nicola J Sunter; Andrew G Hall; Martin J S Dyer; Estella Matutes; Claire Dearden; Tryfonia Mainou-Fowler; Graham H Jackson; Geoffrey Summerfield; Robert J Harris; Andrew R Pettitt; Peter Hillmen; David J Allsup; James R Bailey; Guy Pratt; Chris Pepper; Chris Fegan; James M Allan; Daniel Catovsky; Richard S Houlston Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2008-08-31 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jeffrey C Barrett; Sarah Hansoul; Dan L Nicolae; Judy H Cho; Richard H Duerr; John D Rioux; Steven R Brant; Mark S Silverberg; Kent D Taylor; M Michael Barmada; Alain Bitton; Themistocles Dassopoulos; Lisa Wu Datta; Todd Green; Anne M Griffiths; Emily O Kistner; Michael T Murtha; Miguel D Regueiro; Jerome I Rotter; L Philip Schumm; A Hillary Steinhart; Stephan R Targan; Ramnik J Xavier; Cécile Libioulle; Cynthia Sandor; Mark Lathrop; Jacques Belaiche; Olivier Dewit; Ivo Gut; Simon Heath; Debby Laukens; Myriam Mni; Paul Rutgeerts; André Van Gossum; Diana Zelenika; Denis Franchimont; Jean-Pierre Hugot; Martine de Vos; Severine Vermeire; Edouard Louis; Lon R Cardon; Carl A Anderson; Hazel Drummond; Elaine Nimmo; Tariq Ahmad; Natalie J Prescott; Clive M Onnie; Sheila A Fisher; Jonathan Marchini; Jilur Ghori; Suzannah Bumpstead; Rhian Gwilliam; Mark Tremelling; Panos Deloukas; John Mansfield; Derek Jewell; Jack Satsangi; Christopher G Mathew; Miles Parkes; Michel Georges; Mark J Daly Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2008-06-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Christopher I Amos; Xifeng Wu; Peter Broderick; Ivan P Gorlov; Jian Gu; Timothy Eisen; Qiong Dong; Qing Zhang; Xiangjun Gu; Jayaram Vijayakrishnan; Kate Sullivan; Athena Matakidou; Yufei Wang; Gordon Mills; Kimberly Doheny; Ya-Yu Tsai; Wei Vivien Chen; Sanjay Shete; Margaret R Spitz; Richard S Houlston Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Rajan P Nair; Kristina Callis Duffin; Cynthia Helms; Jun Ding; Philip E Stuart; David Goldgar; Johann E Gudjonsson; Yun Li; Trilokraj Tejasvi; Bing-Jian Feng; Andreas Ruether; Stefan Schreiber; Michael Weichenthal; Dafna Gladman; Proton Rahman; Steven J Schrodi; Sampath Prahalad; Stephen L Guthery; Judith Fischer; Wilson Liao; Pui-Yan Kwok; Alan Menter; G Mark Lathrop; Carol A Wise; Ann B Begovich; John J Voorhees; James T Elder; Gerald G Krueger; Anne M Bowcock; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Tae-Hwi Schwantes-An; Heejong Sung; Jeremy A Sabourin; Cristina M Justice; Alexa J M Sorant; Alexander F Wilson Journal: BMC Proc Date: 2016-10-18
Authors: Jestinah M Mahachie John; François Van Lishout; Elena S Gusareva; Kristel Van Steen Journal: BioData Min Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 2.522