Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Hum Genet. 2016 Jan 14;135(3):299–307. doi: 10.1007/s00439-016-1633-2

Table 2.

Results combining primary family-based and replication case–control studies in the conditional logistic regression framework

SNP Closest geneb Locationc M M MAF
founders
MAF cases MAF
controls
Model Discovery Replication Full sample
Age < 25 yearsa
pd pd OR (95 % CI)d pd OR (95 % CI)d pd
rs916943 AGMO 7 : 15593768 Intron 2 T C 0.08 0.08 0.05 ADD 2.7 × 10−6 0.009 1.86 (1.33, 2.6) 0.0002 2.73 (1.78, 4.18) 2.0 × 10−6
rs358793 WNT5A 3: 55361433 138.3 kb downstream T C 0.49 0.48 0.57 ADD 9.7 × 10−5 0.0004 0.68 (0.57, 0.82) 4.0 × 10−5 0.69 (0.53, 0.90) 0.0057
rs17590261 PCDH10 4: 136564124 2.49 Mb upstream C T 0.1 0.14 0.11 REC 3.5 × 10−5 0.003 6.24 (2.38, 16.33) 2.2 × 10−5 5.47 (1.66, 18.05) 0.0023
rs6786408 FOXP1 3: 71263218 Intron 5 A C 0.48 0.54 0.45 ADD 2.8 × 10−5 0.0007 1.47 (1.23, 1.79) 1.9 × 10−5 1.67 (1.28, 2.13) 8.2 × 10−5

M major allele, m minor allele, MAF minor allele frequency

a

The number of affected individuals included in this analysis are 277 affected offspring and cases <25 years (or 50% of the total affected offspring and cases used in the full sample)

b

Gene in which the SNP is located, or closest gene

c

Chromosome with location in base pairs, and gene position or distance from the closest gene

d

Two-sided test based on the minor allele among founders