iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16415888/
Joint analysis is more efficient than replication-based analysis for two-stage genome-wide association studies - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Feb;38(2):209-13.
doi: 10.1038/ng1706. Epub 2006 Jan 15.

Joint analysis is more efficient than replication-based analysis for two-stage genome-wide association studies

Andrew D Skol  1 , Laura J Scott, Gonçalo R Abecasis, Michael Boehnke
Affiliations

Joint analysis is more efficient than replication-based analysis for two-stage genome-wide association studies

Andrew D Skol et al. Nat Genet. 2006 Feb.

Erratum in

  • Nat Genet. 2006 Mar;38(3):390

Abstract

Genome-wide association is a promising approach to identify common genetic variants that predispose to human disease. Because of the high cost of genotyping hundreds of thousands of markers on thousands of subjects, genome-wide association studies often follow a staged design in which a proportion (pi(samples)) of the available samples are genotyped on a large number of markers in stage 1, and a proportion (pi(samples)) of these markers are later followed up by genotyping them on the remaining samples in stage 2. The standard strategy for analyzing such two-stage data is to view stage 2 as a replication study and focus on findings that reach statistical significance when stage 2 data are considered alone. We demonstrate that the alternative strategy of jointly analyzing the data from both stages almost always results in increased power to detect genetic association, despite the need to use more stringent significance levels, even when effect sizes differ between the two stages. We recommend joint analysis for all two-stage genome-wide association studies, especially when a relatively large proportion of the samples are genotyped in stage 1 (pi(samples) >or= 0.30), and a relatively large proportion of markers are selected for follow-up in stage 2 (pi(markers) >or= 0.01).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources