Importance sampling method of correction for multiple testing in affected sib-pair linkage analysis.

7Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Using the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 simulated data set, we compared the technique of importance sampling to several other methods designed to adjust p-values for multiple testing: the Bonferroni correction, the method proposed by Feingold et al., and naïve Monte Carlo simulation. We performed affected sib-pair linkage analysis for each of the 100 replicates for each of five binary traits and adjusted the derived p-values using each of the correction methods. The type I error rates for each correction method and the ability of each of the methods to detect loci known to influence trait values were compared. All of the methods considered were conservative with respect to type I error, especially the Bonferroni method. The ability of these methods to detect trait loci was also low. However, this may be partially due to a limitation inherent in our binary trait definitions.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Spatial differentiation in the eastern Pacific yellowfin tuna revealed by microsatellite variation

26Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Fine-mapping resolves eae23 into two QTLs and implicates ZEB1 as a candidate gene regulating experimental neuroinflammation in rat

21Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Genetic analysis of anal atresia in pigs: Evidence for segregation at two main loci

10Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Klein, A. P., Kovac, I., Sorant, A. J. M., Baffoe-Bonnie, A., Doan, B. Q., Ibay, G., … Bailey-Wilson, J. E. (2003). Importance sampling method of correction for multiple testing in affected sib-pair linkage analysis. BMC Genetics, 4 Suppl 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-4-s1-s73

Readers over time

‘13‘14‘17‘18‘19‘20‘2101234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

63%

Researcher 3

38%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2

29%

Medicine and Dentistry 2

29%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

29%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0