| Literature DB >> 24683503 |
Anand P Chokkalingam1, Melinda C Aldrich2, Karen Bartley1, Ling-I Hsu1, Catherine Metayer1, Lisa F Barcellos1, Joseph L Wiemels3, John K Wiencke4, Patricia A Buffler1, Steve Selvin1.
Abstract
Some investigators argue that controlling for self-reported race or ethnicity, either in statistical analysis or in study design, is sufficient to mitigate unwanted influence from population stratification. In this report, we evaluated the effectiveness of a study design involving matching on self-reported ethnicity and race in minimizing bias due to population stratification within an ethnically admixed population in California. We estimated individual genetic ancestry using structured association methods and a panel of ancestry informative markers, and observed no statistically significant difference in distribution of genetic ancestry between cases and controls (P=0.46). Stratification by Hispanic ethnicity showed similar results. We evaluated potential confounding by genetic ancestry after adjustment for race and ethnicity for 1260 candidate gene SNPs, and found no major impact (>10%) on risk estimates. In conclusion, we found no evidence of confounding of genetic risk estimates by population substructure using this matched design. Our study provides strong evidence supporting the race- and ethnicity-matched case-control study design as an effective approach to minimizing systematic bias due to differences in genetic ancestry between cases and controls.Entities:
Keywords: Case-control; Genetic susceptibility; Matching; Population stratification
Year: 2011 PMID: 24683503 PMCID: PMC3966291 DOI: 10.4172/2161-1165.1000101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Epidemiology (Sunnyvale)