Abstract
In many family studies, it is often difficult to know exactly how the families were ascertained. Even if known, the circumstances under which the families came to the attention of the study may violate the assumptions of classical ascertainment bias correction. The purpose of this work was to investigate the effect on segregation analysis of violations of the assumptions of the classical ascertainment model. We simulated family data generated under a simple recessive model of inheritance. We then ascertained families under different "scenarios." These scenarios were designed to simulate actual conditions under which families come to the attention of-and then interact with-a clinic or genetic study. We show that how one designates probands, which one must do under the classical ascertainment model, can influence parameter estimation and hypothesis testing. We demonstrate that, in some cases, there may be no "correct" way to designate probands. Further, we show that interactions within the family, the conditions under which the genetic study must function, and even social influences can have a profound effect on segregation analysis. We also propose a method for dealing with the ascertainment problem that is applicable to almost any study situation.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Boehnke M., Greenberg D. A. The effects of conditioning on probands to correct for multiple ascertainment. Am J Hum Genet. 1984 Nov;36(6):1298–1308. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davie A. M. The 'singles' method for segregation analysis under incomplete ascertainment. Ann Hum Genet. 1979 May;42(4):507–512. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1979.tb00683.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elston R. C., Sobel E. Sampling considerations in the gathering and analysis of pedigree data. Am J Hum Genet. 1979 Jan;31(1):62–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greenberg D. A., Hodge S. E. The heterogeneity problem. I: Separating genetic from environmental forms of the same disease. Am J Med Genet. 1985 Jun;21(2):357–371. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320210219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greenberg D. A. Simulation studies of segregation analysis: application to two-locus models. Am J Hum Genet. 1984 Jan;36(1):167–176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hodge S. E., Greenberg D. A., Rotter J. I., Lange K. L. Second-order approximations of ascertainment probabilities. Biometrics. 1980 Mar;36(1):27–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MORTON N. E. Genetic tests under incomplete ascertainment. Am J Hum Genet. 1959 Mar;11(1):1–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stene J. Choice of ascertainment model I. Discrimination between single-proband models by means of birth order data. Ann Hum Genet. 1978 Oct;42(2):219–229. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1978.tb00654.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams J. S., Stene J. Assumptions for different ascertainment models in human genetics. Biometrics. 1977 Sep;33(3):523–527. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]