Jan Graffelman1, Victor Moreno. 1. Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Avinguda Diagonal 647, Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Exact tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are widely used in genetic association studies. We evaluate the mid p-value, unknown in the genetics literature, as an alternative for the standard p-value in the exact test. METHOD: The type 1 error rate and the power of the exact test are calculated for different sample sizes, significance levels, minor allele counts and degrees of deviation from equilibrium. Three different p-value are considered: the standard two-sided p-value, the doubled one-sided p-value and the mid p-value. Practical implications of using the mid p-value are discussed with HapMap datasets and a data set on colon cancer. RESULTS: The mid p-value is shown to have a type 1 error rate that is always closer to the nominal level, and to have better power. Differences between the standard p-value and the mid p-value can be large for insignificant results, and are smaller for significant results. The analysis of empirical databases shows that the mid p-value uncovers more significant markers, and that the equilibrium null distribution is not tenable for both databases. CONCLUSION: The standard exact p-value is overly conservative, in particular for small minor allele frequencies. The mid p-value ameliorates this problem by bringing the rejection rate closer to the nominal level, at the price of occasionally exceeding the nominal level.
OBJECTIVE: Exact tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are widely used in genetic association studies. We evaluate the mid p-value, unknown in the genetics literature, as an alternative for the standard p-value in the exact test. METHOD: The type 1 error rate and the power of the exact test are calculated for different sample sizes, significance levels, minor allele counts and degrees of deviation from equilibrium. Three different p-value are considered: the standard two-sided p-value, the doubled one-sided p-value and the mid p-value. Practical implications of using the mid p-value are discussed with HapMap datasets and a data set on colon cancer. RESULTS: The mid p-value is shown to have a type 1 error rate that is always closer to the nominal level, and to have better power. Differences between the standard p-value and the mid p-value can be large for insignificant results, and are smaller for significant results. The analysis of empirical databases shows that the mid p-value uncovers more significant markers, and that the equilibrium null distribution is not tenable for both databases. CONCLUSION: The standard exact p-value is overly conservative, in particular for small minor allele frequencies. The mid p-value ameliorates this problem by bringing the rejection rate closer to the nominal level, at the price of occasionally exceeding the nominal level.
Authors: Arkan Abadi; Akram Alyass; Sebastien Robiou du Pont; Ben Bolker; Pardeep Singh; Viswanathan Mohan; Rafael Diaz; James C Engert; Salim Yusuf; Hertzel C Gerstein; Sonia S Anand; David Meyre Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jinyoung Byun; Younghun Han; Yafang Li; Jun Xia; Erping Long; Jiyeon Choi; Xiangjun Xiao; Meng Zhu; Wen Zhou; Ryan Sun; Yohan Bossé; Zhuoyi Song; Ann Schwartz; Christine Lusk; Thorunn Rafnar; Kari Stefansson; Tongwu Zhang; Wei Zhao; Rowland W Pettit; Yanhong Liu; Xihao Li; Hufeng Zhou; Kyle M Walsh; Ivan Gorlov; Olga Gorlova; Dakai Zhu; Susan M Rosenberg; Susan Pinney; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Diptasri Mandal; Mariza de Andrade; Colette Gaba; James C Willey; Ming You; Marshall Anderson; John K Wiencke; Demetrius Albanes; Stephan Lam; Adonina Tardon; Chu Chen; Gary Goodman; Stig Bojeson; Hermann Brenner; Maria Teresa Landi; Stephen J Chanock; Mattias Johansson; Thomas Muley; Angela Risch; H-Erich Wichmann; Heike Bickeböller; David C Christiani; Gad Rennert; Susanne Arnold; John K Field; Sanjay Shete; Loic Le Marchand; Olle Melander; Hans Brunnstrom; Geoffrey Liu; Angeline S Andrew; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Hongbing Shen; Shanbeh Zienolddiny; Kjell Grankvist; Mikael Johansson; Neil Caporaso; Angela Cox; Yun-Chul Hong; Jian-Min Yuan; Philip Lazarus; Matthew B Schabath; Melinda C Aldrich; Alpa Patel; Qing Lan; Nathaniel Rothman; Fiona Taylor; Linda Kachuri; John S Witte; Lori C Sakoda; Margaret Spitz; Paul Brennan; Xihong Lin; James McKay; Rayjean J Hung; Christopher I Amos Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 41.307
Authors: Christopher C Chang; Carson C Chow; Laurent Cam Tellier; Shashaank Vattikuti; Shaun M Purcell; James J Lee Journal: Gigascience Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 6.524
Authors: Mark T W Ebbert; Kevin L Boehme; Mark E Wadsworth; Lyndsay A Staley; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Paul K Crane; Perry G Ridge; John S K Kauwe Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Alan M Kwong; Thomas W Blackwell; Jonathon LeFaive; Mariza de Andrade; John Barnard; Kathleen C Barnes; John Blangero; Eric Boerwinkle; Esteban G Burchard; Brian E Cade; Daniel I Chasman; Han Chen; Matthew P Conomos; L Adrienne Cupples; Patrick T Ellinor; Celeste Eng; Yan Gao; Xiuqing Guo; Marguerite Ryan Irvin; Tanika N Kelly; Wonji Kim; Charles Kooperberg; Steven A Lubitz; Angel C Y Mak; Ani W Manichaikul; Rasika A Mathias; May E Montasser; Courtney G Montgomery; Solomon Musani; Nicholette D Palmer; Gina M Peloso; Dandi Qiao; Alexander P Reiner; Dan M Roden; M Benjamin Shoemaker; Jennifer A Smith; Nicholas L Smith; Jessica Lasky Su; Hemant K Tiwari; Daniel E Weeks; Scott T Weiss; Laura J Scott; Albert V Smith; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Michael Boehnke; Hyun Min Kang Journal: Genetics Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.402