Table 7.
Results of the Analysis of the NIDDM1 Data Set[Note]
P Value for Our Test |
||||||
MapOrder | Locus | AlleleFrequency | No. ofFamilies | LinkageP Value | Unadjusted | Adjusted (7.4×10-4) |
1 | SNP20 | .85 | 153 | 3.57×10-5 | .0001337 | .0394 |
2 | SNP66 | .88 | 124 | 5.95×10-5 | .0009932 | .1048 |
3 | SNP45 | .94 | 163 | 1.58×10-5 | .0001234 | .0285 |
4 | SNP44 | .94 | 164 | 2.32×10-5 | .0001009 | .0376 |
5 | SNP43a | .73 | 160 | 2.01×10-5 | .0000001 | .0004 |
6 | SNP79 | .97 | 161 | 2.66×10-5 | .0000244 | .0247 |
7 | SNP78 | .94 | 162 | 2.03×10-5 | .0000558 | .0291 |
8 | SNP77 | .92 | 161 | 1.58×10-5 | .0000522 | .0228 |
9 | SNP56 | .57 | 149 | 4.40×10-5 | .0001638 | .0157 |
10 | SNP19a | .56 | 161 | 1.47×10-5 | .0000347 | .0042 |
11 | SNP48 | .55 | 154 | 1.64×10-5 | .0000303 | .0033 |
12 | SNP62 | .81 | 125 | 6.27×10-5 | .0081385 | .1174 |
13 | SNP63a | .76 | 130 | 3.50×10-5 | .0001566 | .0197 |
14 | SNP26 | .92 | 162 | 2.04×10-5 | .0000356 | .0137 |
15 | SNP25 | .50 | 156 | 4.07×10-5 | .0000322 | .0054 |
16 | SNP24 | .98 | 162 | 1.92×10-5 | .0000053 | .0201 |
17 | SNP23 | .85 | 158 | 1.67×10-5 | .0000556 | .0084 |
18 | SNP22 | .61 | 158 | 1.56×10-5 | .0019207 | .0253 |
19 | SNP53 | .90 | 155 | 6.80×10-5 | .0000026 | .0161 |
20 | SNP38 | .62 | 154 | 5.62×10-5 | .0004898 | .0196 |
21 | SNP29 | .77 | 151 | 1.48×10-5 | .0001107 | .0074 |
22 | SNP28 | .56 | 156 | 0.46×10-5 | .0003044 | .0057 |
Note.— The SNPs are listed in map order. The number of families (i.e., the number of sibships with at least two genotyped affected sibs) varies from SNP to SNP because of missing data for some SNPs in some families. The linkage P value is the P value for the ordinary allele-sharing test of linkage applied to the nonmissing families for that SNP. The unadjusted P value for our test is the P value for the test of H0: the given SNP is the sole cause of linkage, and the adjusted P value is conditional on detection of suggestive evidence for linkage.
SNPs implicated in the study by Horikawa et al. (2000).