Literature DB >> 3766539

The effect of proband designation on segregation analysis.

D A Greenberg.   

Abstract

In many family studies, it is often difficult to know exactly how the families were ascertained. Even if known, the circumstances under which the families came to the attention of the study may violate the assumptions of classical ascertainment bias correction. The purpose of this work was to investigate the effect on segregation analysis of violations of the assumptions of the classical ascertainment model. We simulated family data generated under a simple recessive model of inheritance. We then ascertained families under different "scenarios." These scenarios were designed to simulate actual conditions under which families come to the attention of-and then interact with-a clinic or genetic study. We show that how one designates probands, which one must do under the classical ascertainment model, can influence parameter estimation and hypothesis testing. We demonstrate that, in some cases, there may be no "correct" way to designate probands. Further, we show that interactions within the family, the conditions under which the genetic study must function, and even social influences can have a profound effect on segregation analysis. We also propose a method for dealing with the ascertainment problem that is applicable to almost any study situation.

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3766539      PMCID: PMC1683963     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  9 in total

1.  Genetic tests under incomplete ascertainment.

Authors:  N E MORTON
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1959-03       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Assumptions for different ascertainment models in human genetics.

Authors:  J S Williams; J Stene
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Sampling considerations in the gathering and analysis of pedigree data.

Authors:  R C Elston; E Sobel
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  The effects of conditioning on probands to correct for multiple ascertainment.

Authors:  M Boehnke; D A Greenberg
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Simulation studies of segregation analysis: application to two-locus models.

Authors:  D A Greenberg
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  The heterogeneity problem. I: Separating genetic from environmental forms of the same disease.

Authors:  D A Greenberg; S E Hodge
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1985-06

7.  Second-order approximations of ascertainment probabilities.

Authors:  S E Hodge; D A Greenberg; J I Rotter; K L Lange
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  The 'singles' method for segregation analysis under incomplete ascertainment.

Authors:  A M Davie
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 1.670

9.  Choice of ascertainment model I. Discrimination between single-proband models by means of birth order data.

Authors:  J Stene
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 1.670

  9 in total
  10 in total

1.  Likelihood formulation of parent-of-origin effects on segregation analysis, including ascertainment.

Authors:  Fatemeh Haghighi; Susan E Hodge
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2001-11-30       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Heritability and segregation analysis of deafness in U.S. Dalmatians.

Authors:  E J Cargill; T R Famula; G M Strain; K E Murphy
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Computer simulation is an undervalued tool for genetic analysis: a historical view and presentation of SHIMSHON--a Web-based genetic simulation package.

Authors:  David A Greenberg
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 0.444

4.  Segregation analysis with uncertain ascertainment: application to Fanconi anemia.

Authors:  A Rogatko; A D Auerbach
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Changing the definition of "proband" in the new standardized nomenclature for pedigrees.

Authors:  M L Marazita
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Further evidence for the increased power of LOD scores compared with nonparametric methods.

Authors:  M Durner; V J Vieland; D A Greenberg
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  The essence of single ascertainment.

Authors:  S E Hodge; V J Vieland
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Conditioning on subsets of the data: applications to ascertainment and other genetic problems.

Authors:  S E Hodge
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  A resolution of the ascertainment sampling problem. II. Generalizations and numerical results.

Authors:  N C Shute; W J Ewens
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Correcting for single ascertainment by truncation for a quantitative trait.

Authors:  M R Young; M Boehnke; P P Moll
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 11.025

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.