Recommended Joint and Meta‐Analysis Strategies for Case‐Control Association Testing of Single Low‐Count Variants
dc.contributor.author | Ma, Clement | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Blackwell, Tom | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Boehnke, Michael | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Scott, Laura J. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2013-09-04T17:18:44Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-10-06T19:17:42Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2013-09 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Ma, Clement; Blackwell, Tom; Boehnke, Michael; Scott, Laura J. (2013). "Recommended Joint and Meta‐Analysis Strategies for Case‐Control Association Testing of Single Low‐Count Variants." Genetic Epidemiology 37(6): 539-550. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/99692> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0741-0395 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1098-2272 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/99692 | |
dc.description.abstract | In genome‐wide association studies of binary traits, investigators typically use logistic regression to test common variants for disease association within studies, and combine association results across studies using meta‐analysis. For common variants, logistic regression tests are well calibrated, and meta‐analysis of study‐specific association results is only slightly less powerful than joint analysis of the combined individual‐level data. In recent sequencing and dense chip based association studies, investigators increasingly test low‐frequency variants for disease association. In this paper, we seek to (1) identify the association test with maximal power among tests with well controlled type I error rate and (2) compare the relative power of joint and meta‐analysis tests. We use analytic calculation and simulation to compare the empirical type I error rate and power of four logistic regression based tests: Wald, score, likelihood ratio, and Firth bias‐corrected. We demonstrate for low‐count variants (roughly minor allele count [MAC] < 400) that: (1) for joint analysis, the Firth test has the best combination of type I error and power; (2) for meta‐analysis of balanced studies (equal numbers of cases and controls), the score test is best, but is less powerful than Firth test based joint analysis; and (3) for meta‐analysis of sufficiently unbalanced studies, all four tests can be anti‐conservative, particularly the score test. We also establish MAC as the key parameter determining test calibration for joint and meta‐analysis. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Chapman and Hall | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Meta‐Analysis | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Joint Analysis | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Single Variant Tests | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Low‐Frequency Variants | en_US |
dc.title | Recommended Joint and Meta‐Analysis Strategies for Case‐Control Association Testing of Single Low‐Count Variants | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Biological Chemistry | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Genetics | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 23788246 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/99692/1/gepi21742.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/99692/2/gepi21742-sup-0010-figureS1.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/gepi.21742 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Genetic Epidemiology | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mantel N, Haenszel W. 1959. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: 719 – 748. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mehta CR, Patel NR. 1995. Exact logistic regression: theory and examples. Stat Med 14: 2143 – 2160. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ploner M, Dunkler D, Southworth H, Heinze G. 2010. logistf: Firth's bias reduced logistic regression. Version 1.10. Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna. Available at: http://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=logistf. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Steinthorsdottir V, Thorleifsson G, Reynisdottir I, Benediktsson R, Jonsdottir T, Walters GB, Styrkarsdottir U, Gretarsdottir S, Emilsson V, Ghosh S and others. 2007. A variant in CDKAL1 influences insulin response and risk of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 39: 770 – 775. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computation. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.r‐project.org/ | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Firth D. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80: 27 – 38. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Han B, Eskin E. 2011. Random‐effects model aimed at discovering associations in meta‐analysis of genome‐wide association studies. Am J Hum Genet 88: 586 – 598. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hauck WW, Donner A. 1977. Wald's test as applied to hypotheses in logit analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 72: 851 – 853. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Heinze G, Schemper M. 2002. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Stat Med 21: 2409 – 2419. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hindorff LA, MacArthur J, Wise A, Junkins HA, Hall PN, Klemm AK, Manolio TA. 2012. A catalog of published genome‐wide association studies. NHGRI. Available at: www.genome.gov/gwastudies | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kang HM. 2012. EPACTS: efficient and parallelizable association container toolbox. Department of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Genetics, University of Michigan. Available at: http://www.sph.umich.edu/csg/kang/epacts/. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Li B, Leal SM. 2008. Methods for detecting associations with rare variants for common diseases: application to analysis of sequence data. Am J Hum Genet 83: 311 – 321. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lin DY, Zeng D. 2010. Meta‐analysis of genome‐wide association studies: no efficiency gain in using individual participant data. Genet Epidemiol 34: 60 – 66. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Madsen BE, Browning SR. 2009. A groupwise association test for rare mutations using a weighted sum statistic. PLoS Genet 5: e1000384. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Yates F. 1934. Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ 2 test. Supp J R Stat Soc 1: 217 – 235. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Xing G, Lin CY, Wooding SP, Xing C. 2012. Blindly using Wald's test can miss rare disease‐causal variants in case‐control association studies. Ann Hum Genet 76: 168 – 177. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wu MC, Lee S, Cai T, Li Y, Boehnke M, Lin X. 2011. Rare‐variant association testing for sequencing data with the sequence kernel association test. Am J Hum Genet 89: 82 – 93. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Willer CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR. 2010. METAL: fast and efficient meta‐analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 26: 2190 – 2191. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Upton GJG. 1982. A comparison of alternative tests for the 2×2 comparative trial. J R Stat Soc Ser A 145: 86 – 105. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Albert A, Anderson JA. 1984. On the existence of maximum likelihood estimates in logistic regression models. Biometrika 71: 1 – 10. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cox DR, Hinkley DV. 1974. Theoretical Statistics. London: Chapman and Hall. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Dersimonian R, Laird N. 1986. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7: 177 – 188. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.