Power to detect QTL Association
description
Transcript of Power to detect QTL Association
![Page 1: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Power to detect QTL Association
Lon Cardon, Goncalo AbecasisUniversity of Oxford
Pak Sham, Shaun PurcellInstitute of Psychiatry
F:\lon\2001\Assocpower
![Page 2: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
In principle, power to detect association involves same mechanics as linkage
Association Power
We are interested in significance thresholds1- the probability of rejecting the null when it is falseN the number of individuals required to do it
![Page 3: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Association Power
What are the important variables/parameters?
Linkage:• Study design• QTL effect size• recombination fraction
Association:• Study design• QTL effect size• Linkage disequilibrium• allele frequencies of marker and QTL
![Page 4: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Association Power
In general,power is greater for association than for linkage
ie., fewer individuals required, can detect smaller effects (h2 ~ 5% vs. 20%)
But, more markers may be tested,
false positives are (or may be) more relevant
![Page 5: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Effects of Linkage Disequilibrium
• Key question for positional cloning and candidate gene analysis
• LD expected to decay (1-)G
• How far does it extend?Debates: 3 kb – 100 kb (Kruglyak : rest of world).Population-specific (depends on ancestral demographics)Genomic region-specific (ie., depends on sequence features)Marker-specific (ie., depends on markers considered)
Variation dominates data
![Page 6: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Extent of Disequilibrium
![Page 7: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pair-wise Disequilibrium
![Page 8: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Sensitivity to Disequilibrium
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
480 triads 0 2 20 70 97
240 sib-pairs 0 2 23 73 98
120 sib-quads 0 3 27 76 98
Estimate of a 0 1.1 2.2 3.4 4.5
Amount of Disequilibrium
Power for =0.001, h² = .1, s² = .3, = 0.
Average additive genetic value estimated at the marker.
![Page 9: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Influence of Family Size
For ‘robust’ tests (TDT, QTDT) class,
Best design includes parental genotypes, but theyare not mandatory
As sibship size increases, missing parental databecomes less important
![Page 10: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Effect of Family Structure
0
8
16
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Total Offspring
-Log
()
parents sib-pair sib-triad sib-quad
350 sib-pair + parents: 1400 genotypes
500 sib-pairs – no parents: 1000 genotypes
260 sib-trios no parents: 780 genotypes
![Page 11: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Single Nucleotide PolymorphismsCommon disease-common variant hypothesis: Common diseases have been around for a long time. Alleles require a long time to become common (frequent) in the population. Common diseases are influenced by frequent alleles.
The SNP Consortium (TSC):• Collection of 10 pharmaceutical companies & Wellcome Trust• Identified > 1 million SNPs across the genome• public databases now have ~ 1.5 million non-redundant SNPs (relatively few verified)• SNPs detected on basis of common disease common variant hypothesis (caucasian, african american, asian)• …Should be preponderance of common alleles
![Page 12: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Extent of Disequilibrium
![Page 13: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Effects of Allele Frequency
Key question is not just frequency of QTL, but frequency of marker in LD with it
More important that marker-QTL allele frequencies are the same than that QTL is common;
i.e., CD-CV hypothesis not as relevant as SNP map
![Page 14: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Trios For Genome-Wide Scan
Disease AlleleFrequency
Marker Allele Frequency
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
0.1 248 626 1306 2893 10830
0.3 1018 238 466 996 3651
0.5 2874 702 267 556 2002
0.7 9169 2299 925 337 1187
0.9 73783 18908 7933 3229 616
s = 1.5, = 5 x 10-8, Spielman TDT (Müller-Myhsok and Abel, 1997)
![Page 15: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Effect of Allele Frequencies
![Page 16: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Phenotypic Selection
• Efficiency gains for genotyping– Well characterized for linkage mapping ...– ... Association mapping gaining prominence
• Selection tresholds– A priori versus Post hoc
• Common variant hypothesis– Effect of allele frequency
![Page 17: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Selection Strategies
• Selection based on one tail– Affected Proband, Affected Pairs
• Selection from either tail– Extreme Proband– Concordant Pairs– Discordant Pairs– Discordant and Concordant
![Page 18: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Selection Tresholds
• Hard definition– A priori– Treshold defined before sample collection– Eg, pairs with both sibs in top decile
• Adaptable selection– Post hoc– Tresholds defined after sample collection– Eg, subselection from large twin registries
![Page 19: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Intensity of a priori selection
1
10
100
1000
10000
Sele
ctio
n R
atio
AP EP ASP CSP DSP EDAC
Selection Strategy
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.05
![Page 20: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Selection of Triads 360 x Single Child Families Selection TDT PDT QTDT Ratio
Unselected - 1.0 0.15 0.54 0.55
AP: "Affected Proband" – Top Tail = .05 20.0 0.86 0.02 0.03
10 10.0 0.75 0.03 0.04 30 3.3 0.55 0.06 0.07 50 2.0 0.36 0.11 0.12
EP: "Extreme Proband" – Top or Bottom Tail = .05 10.0 0.85 1.00 1.00
10 5.0 0.70 0.98 0.98 30 1.7 0.31 0.73 0.74 50 1.0 0.13 0.54 0.53
![Page 21: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
180 x Two Child Families Selection TDT PDT QTDT Ratio
Unselected - 1.0 0.14 0.51 0.56
AP: "Affected Proband" = .05 10.9 0.68 0.73 0.72
10 5.7 0.56 0.67 0.66
EP: "Extreme Proband" = .05 5.5 0.39 0.92 0.93
10 2.9 0.32 0.80 0.85
ASP: "Affected Sib-Pair" = .05 122.1 0.88 0.04 0.05
10 41.5 0.79 0.05 0.06
CSP: "Concordant Sib-Pair" = .05 61.1 0.50 0.90 0.15
10 20.8 0.40 0.83 0.17
DSP: "Discordant Sib-Pair" = .05 1617.9 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 217.9 0.99 1.00 1.00
EDAC: "Extreme Discordant and Concordant Pair" = .05 58.8 0.53 0.94 0.50
10 19.0 0.47 0.85 0.68
![Page 22: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Post hoc SelectionSelection Ratio 1 2 4 8 12 16 20
Discrete Trait Analysis after Dichotomization
ASP* .05 .08 .09 .13 .18 .20 .28
Quantitative Trait Analysis
AP* 0.21 0.22 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.34 0.41
EP* .21 .38 .51 .57 .59 .63 .73
CSP* .21 .17 .26 .30 .31 .32 .48
DSP* .21 .24 .38 .47 .57 .59 .75
EDAC* .21 .31 .36 .43 .42 .44 .49
![Page 23: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Effect of Allele Frequencies
![Page 24: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Effect of Selection
![Page 25: Power to detect QTL Association](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062302/56816836550346895dddf68b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Summary
•Power for association generally greater than linkage
•Power greatly influenced by D, selection strategy,allele frequency
•Optimal linkage strategies not necessarily best forassociation
•Allele frequency of (unobserved) QTL is important,but more important that marker-QTL match