Accounting for Relatedness in Family Based Genetic Association Studies

Objective: Assess the differences in point estimates, power and type 1 error rates when accounting for and ignoring family structure in genetic tests of association. Methods: We compare by simulation the performance of analytic models using variance components to account for family structure and regression models that ignore relatedness for a range of possible family based study designs (i.e., sib pairs vs. large sibships vs. nuclear families vs. extended families). Results: Our analyses indicate that effect size estimates and power are not significantly affected by ignoring family structure. Type 1 error rates increase when family structure is ignored, as density of family structures increases, and as trait heritability increases. For discrete traits with moderate levels of heritability and across many common sampling designs, type 1 error rates rise from a nominal 0.05 to 0.11. Conclusion: Ignoring family structure may be useful in screening although it comes at a cost of a increased type 1 error rate, the magnitude of which depends on trait heritability and pedigree configuration.

[1]  N. Risch Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium , 2000, Nature.

[2]  M. Wagner,et al.  Diabetes in the Old Order Amish: characterization and heritability analysis of the Amish Family Diabetes Study. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[3]  luliana lonita,et al.  Optimal two-stage strategy for detecting interacting genes in complex diseases , 2006, BMC Genetics.

[4]  Hiroshi Sato,et al.  Functional SNPs in the lymphotoxin-α gene that are associated with susceptibility to myocardial infarction , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[5]  G. Abecasis,et al.  Pedigree tests of transmission disequilibrium , 2000, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[6]  N J Cox,et al.  The importance of genealogy in determining genetic associations with complex traits. , 2001, American journal of human genetics.

[7]  J. Ott,et al.  Complement Factor H Polymorphism in Age-Related Macular Degeneration , 2005, Science.

[8]  R C Elston,et al.  Transmission/disequilibrium tests for quantitative traits , 2001, Genetic epidemiology.

[9]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[10]  F. Middleton,et al.  Complete maternal uniparental isodisomy of chromosome 4 in a subject with major depressive disorder detected by high density SNP genotyping arrays , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics.

[11]  M. Goddard A mixed model for analyses of data on multiple genetic markers , 1992, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[12]  J. Mathews,et al.  Extensions to multivariate normal models for pedigree analysis , 1982, Annals of human genetics.

[13]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, 3rd ed. , 1998 .

[14]  D. Allison,et al.  Joint tests of linkage and association for quantitative traits. , 2001, Theoretical population biology.

[15]  Lynne Pearce,et al.  Partners in crime. , 2008, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[16]  S. Bull,et al.  Evaluation of genetic and environmental effects using GEE and APM methods , 1995, Genetic epidemiology.

[17]  L. Almasy,et al.  Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[18]  P. Donnelly,et al.  Genome-wide strategies for detecting multiple loci that influence complex diseases , 2005, Nature Genetics.