Abstract
One of the major challenges facing genome-scan studies to discover disease genes is the assessment of the genomewide significance. The assessment becomes particularly challenging if the scan involves a large number of markers collected from a relatively small number of meioses. Typically, this assessment has two objectives: to assess genomewide significance under the null hypothesis of no linkage and to evaluate true-positive and false-positive prediction error rates under alternative hypotheses. The distinction between these goals allows one to formulate the problem in the well-established paradigm of statistical hypothesis testing. Within this paradigm, we evaluate the traditional criterion of LOD score 3.0 and a recent suggestion of LOD score 3.6, using the Monte Carlo simulation method. The Monte Carlo experiments show that the type I error varies with the chromosome length, with the number of markers, and also with sample sizes. For a typical setup with 50 informative meioses on 50 markers uniformly distributed on a chromosome of average length (i.e., 150 cM), the use of LOD score 3.0 entails an estimated chromosomewide type I error rate of.00574, leading to a genomewide significance level >.05. In contrast, the corresponding type I error for LOD score 3.6 is.00191, giving a genomewide significance level of slightly <.05. However, with a larger sample size and a shorter chromosome, a LOD score between 3.0 and 3.6 may be preferred, on the basis of proximity to the targeted type I error. In terms of reliability, these two LOD-score criteria appear not to have appreciable differences. These simulation experiments also identified factors that influence power and reliability, shedding light on the design of genome-scan studies.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (414.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Chee M., Yang R., Hubbell E., Berno A., Huang X. C., Stern D., Winkler J., Lockhart D. J., Morris M. S., Fodor S. P. Accessing genetic information with high-density DNA arrays. Science. 1996 Oct 25;274(5287):610–614. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5287.610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Feingold E., Brown P. O., Siegmund D. Gaussian models for genetic linkage analysis using complete high-resolution maps of identity by descent. Am J Hum Genet. 1993 Jul;53(1):234–251. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MORTON N. E. Sequential tests for the detection of linkage. Am J Hum Genet. 1955 Sep;7(3):277–318. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rao D. C. CAT scans, PET scans, and genomic scans. Genet Epidemiol. 1998;15(1):1–18. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2272(1998)15:1<1::AID-GEPI1>3.0.CO;2-B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang D. G., Fan J. B., Siao C. J., Berno A., Young P., Sapolsky R., Ghandour G., Perkins N., Winchester E., Spencer J. Large-scale identification, mapping, and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the human genome. Science. 1998 May 15;280(5366):1077–1082. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5366.1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Witte J. S., Elston R. C., Schork N. J. Genetic dissection of complex traits. Nat Genet. 1996 Apr;12(4):355–358. doi: 10.1038/ng0496-355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]