Detailed Analysis of the Relative Power of Direct and Indirect Association Studies and the Implications for Their Interpretation (original) (raw)
Article navigation
Meta-Analysis| April 27 2007
Department of Psychological Medicine, Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Search for other works by this author on:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Search for other works by this author on:
Hum Hered (2007) 64 (1): 63–73.
Received:
September 15 2006
Accepted:
January 16 2007
Published Online:
April 27 2007
Abstract
Objectives: Genetic association studies are usually based upon restricted sets of ‘tag’ markers selected to represent the total sequence variation. Tag selection is often determined by some threshold for the _r_2 coefficients of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between tag and untyped markers, it being widely assumed that power to detect an effect at the untyped sites is retained by typing the tag marker in a sample scaled by the inverse of the selected threshold (1/_r_2). However, unless only a single causal variant occurs at a locus, it has been shown [Eur J Hum Genet 2006;14:426–437] that significant power loss can occur if this principle is applied. We sought to investigate whether unexpected loss of power might be an exceptional case or more general concern. In the absence of detailed knowledge about the genetic architecture at complex disease loci, we developed a mathematical approach to test all possible situations. Methods: We derived mathematical formulae allowing the calculation of all possible odds ratios (OR) at a tag marker locus given the effect size that would be observed by typing a second locus and the _r_2 between the two loci. For a range of allele frequencies, _r_2 between loci, and strengths of association at the causal locus (OR from 0.5 to 2) that we consider realistic for complex disease loci, we next determined the sample sizes that would be necessary to give equivalent power to detect association by genotyping tag and causal loci and compared these with the sample sizes predicted by applying 1/_r_2. Results: Under most of the hypothetical scenarios we examined, the calculated sample sizes required to maintain power by typing markers that tag the causal locus at even moderately high _r_2 (0.8) were greater than that calculated by applying 1/_r_2. Even in populations with apparently similar measurements of allele frequency, LD structure, and effect size at the susceptibility allele, the required sample size to detect association with a tag marker can vary substantially. We also show that in apparently similar populations, associations to either allele at the tag site are possible. Conclusions: Indirect tests of association are less powered than sizes predicted by applying 1/_r_2 in the majority of hypothetical scenarios we examined. Our findings pertain even for what we consider likely to be larger than average effect sizes in complex diseases (OR = 1.5–2) and even for moderately high _r_2 values between the markers. Until a substantial number of disease genes have been identified through methods that are not based on tagging, and therefore biased towards those situations most favourable to tagging, it is impossible to know how the true scenarios are distributed across the range of possible scenarios. Nevertheless, while association designs based upon tag marker selection by necessity are the tool of choice for de novo gene discovery, our data suggest power to initially detect association may often be less than assumed. Moreover, our data suggest that to avoid genuine findings being subsequently discarded by unpredictable losses of power, follow up studies in other samples should be based upon more detailed analyses of the gene rather than simply on the tag SNPs showing association in the discovery study.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
Sign in
Digital Version
Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
1 Karger Article Bundle Token
$150
Rental
This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. 