Validity and power of association testing in family-based sampling designs: evidence for and against the common wisdom.

Current common wisdom posits that association analyses using family-based designs have inflated type 1 error rates (if relationships are ignored) and independent controls are more powerful than familial controls. We explore these suppositions. We show theoretically that family-based designs can have deflated type-error rates. Through simulation, we examine the validity and power of family designs for several scenarios: cases from randomly or selectively ascertained pedigrees; and familial or independent controls. Family structures considered are as follows: sibships, nuclear families, moderate-sized and extended pedigrees. Three methods were considered with the χ(2) test for trend: variance correction (VC), weighted (weights assigned to account for genetic similarity), and naïve (ignoring relatedness) as well as the Modified Quasi-likelihood Score (MQLS) test. Selectively ascertained pedigrees had similar levels of disease enrichment; random ascertainment had no such restriction. Data for 1,000 cases and 1,000 controls were created under the null and alternate models. The VC and MQLS methods were always valid. The naïve method was anti-conservative if independent controls were used and valid or conservative in designs with familial controls. The weighted association method was generally valid for independent controls, and was conservative for familial controls. With regard to power, independent controls were more powerful for small-to-moderate selectively ascertained pedigrees, but familial and independent controls were equivalent in the extended pedigrees and familial controls were consistently more powerful for all randomly ascertained pedigrees. These results suggest a more complex situation than previously assumed, which has important implications for study design and analysis.