Weilong Li1, Lene Christiansen1, Jacob Hjelmborg1, Jan Baumbach2,3, Qihua Tan1,4. 1. Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 2. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Chair of Experimental Bioinformatics, TUM School of Life Science, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Unit of Human Genetics, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
Motivation: Many studies have investigated the association between DNA methylation alterations and disease occurrences using two design paradigms, traditional case-control and disease-discordant twins. In the disease-discordant twin design, the affected twin serves as the case and the unaffected twin serves as the control. Theoretically the twin design takes advantage of controlling for the shared genetic make-up, but it is still highly debatable if and how much researchers may benefit from such a design over the traditional case-control design. Results: In this study, we investigate and compare the power of both designs with simulations. A liability threshold model was used assuming that identical twins share the same genetic contribution with respect to the liability of complex human diseases. Varying ranges of parameters have been used to ensure that the simulation is close to real-world scenarios. Our results reveal that the disease-discordant twin design implies greater statistical power over the traditional case-control design. For diseases with moderate and high heritability (>0.3), the disease-discordant twin design allows for large sample size reductions compared to the ordinary case-control design. Our simulation results indicate that the discordant twin design is indeed a powerful tool for epigenetic association studies. Availability and implementation: Computer scripts are available at https://github.com/zickyls/EWAS-Twin-Simulation. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Motivation: Many studies have investigated the association between DNA methylation alterations and disease occurrences using two design paradigms, traditional case-control and disease-discordant twins. In the disease-discordant twin design, the affected twin serves as the case and the unaffected twin serves as the control. Theoretically the twin design takes advantage of controlling for the shared genetic make-up, but it is still highly debatable if and how much researchers may benefit from such a design over the traditional case-control design. Results: In this study, we investigate and compare the power of both designs with simulations. A liability threshold model was used assuming that identical twins share the same genetic contribution with respect to the liability of complex human diseases. Varying ranges of parameters have been used to ensure that the simulation is close to real-world scenarios. Our results reveal that the disease-discordant twin design implies greater statistical power over the traditional case-control design. For diseases with moderate and high heritability (>0.3), the disease-discordant twin design allows for large sample size reductions compared to the ordinary case-control design. Our simulation results indicate that the discordant twin design is indeed a powerful tool for epigenetic association studies. Availability and implementation: Computer scripts are available at https://github.com/zickyls/EWAS-Twin-Simulation. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: Xin Sheng; Chengxiang Qiu; Hongbo Liu; Caroline Gluck; Jesse Y Hsu; Jiang He; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Daohang Sha; Matthew R Weir; Tamara Isakova; Dominic Raj; Hernan Rincon-Choles; Harold I Feldman; Raymond Townsend; Hongzhe Li; Katalin Susztak Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ida K Karlsson; Malin Ericsson; Yunzhang Wang; Juulia Jylhävä; Sara Hägg; Anna K Dahl Aslan; Chandra A Reynolds; Nancy L Pedersen Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Elise M A Slob; Bronwyn K Brew; Susanne J H Vijverberg; Talitha Dijs; Catharina E M van Beijsterveldt; Gerard H Koppelman; Meike Bartels; Conor V Dolan; Henrik Larsson; Sebastian Lundström; Paul Lichtenstein; Tong Gong; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee; Aletta D Kraneveld; Catarina Almqvist; Dorret I Boomsma Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Roxann Roberson-Nay; Dana M Lapato; Aaron R Wolen; Eva E Lancaster; Bradley T Webb; Bradley Verhulst; John M Hettema; Timothy P York Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 6.222