- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- UBC Faculty Research and Publications /
- A comparison of five methods for selecting tagging...
Open Collections
UBC Faculty Research and Publications
A comparison of five methods for selecting tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms Burkett, Kelly M; Ghadessi, Mercedeh; McNeney, Brad; Graham, Jinko; Daley, Denise
Abstract
Our goal was to compare methods for tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) with respect to the power to detect disease association under differing haplotype-disease association models. We were also interested in the effect that SNP selection samples, consisting of either cases, controls, or a mixture, would have on power. We investigated five previously described algorithms for choosing tagSNPS: two that picked SNPs based on haplotype structure (Chapman-haplotypic and Stram), two that picked SNPs based on pair-wise allelic association (Chapman-allelic and Cousin), and one control method that chose equally spaced SNPs (Zhai). In two disease-associated regions from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data, we tested the association between tagSNP genotype and disease over the tagSNP sets chosen by each method for each sampling scheme. This was repeated for 100 replicates to estimate power. The two allelic methods chose essentially all SNPs in the region and had nearly optimal power. The two haplotypic methods chose about half as many SNPs. The haplotypic methods had poor performance compared to the allelic methods in both regions. We expected an improvement in power when the selection sample contained cases; however, there was only moderate variation in power between the sampling approaches for each method. Finally, when compared to the haplotypic methods, the reference method performed as well or worse in the region with ancestral disease haplotype structure.
Item Metadata
Title |
A comparison of five methods for selecting tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms
|
Creator | |
Contributor | |
Publisher |
BioMed Central
|
Date Issued |
2005-12-30
|
Description |
Our goal was to compare methods for tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) with respect to the power to detect disease association under differing haplotype-disease association models. We were also interested in the effect that SNP selection samples, consisting of either cases, controls, or a mixture, would have on power. We investigated five previously described algorithms for choosing tagSNPS: two that picked SNPs based on haplotype structure (Chapman-haplotypic and Stram), two that picked SNPs based on pair-wise allelic association (Chapman-allelic and Cousin), and one control method that chose equally spaced SNPs (Zhai). In two disease-associated regions from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data, we tested the association between tagSNP genotype and disease over the tagSNP sets chosen by each method for each sampling scheme. This was repeated for 100 replicates to estimate power. The two allelic methods chose essentially all SNPs in the region and had nearly optimal power. The two haplotypic methods chose about half as many SNPs. The haplotypic methods had poor performance compared to the allelic methods in both regions. We expected an improvement in power when the selection sample contained cases; however, there was only moderate variation in power between the sampling approaches for each method. Finally, when compared to the haplotypic methods, the reference method performed as well or worse in the region with ancestral disease haplotype structure.
|
Genre | |
Type | |
Language |
eng
|
Date Available |
2015-11-04
|
Provider |
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
|
Rights |
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
|
DOI |
10.14288/1.0167808
|
URI | |
Affiliation | |
Citation |
BMC Genetics. 2005 Dec 30;6(Suppl 1):S71
|
Publisher DOI |
10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S71
|
Peer Review Status |
Reviewed
|
Scholarly Level |
Faculty
|
Copyright Holder |
Burkett et al
|
Rights URI | |
Aggregated Source Repository |
DSpace
|
Item Media
Item Citations and Data
Rights
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)