Comparison of genome-wide association methods in analyses of admixed populations with complex familial relationships

12Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Population structure is known to cause false-positive detection in association studies. We compared the power, precision, and type-I error rates of various association models in analyses of a simulated dataset with structure at the population (admixture from two populations; P) and family (K) levels. We also compared type-I error rates among models in analyses of publicly available human and dog datasets. The models corrected for none, one, or both structure levels. Correction for K was performed with linear mixed models incorporating familial relationships estimated from pedigrees or genetic markers. Linear models that ignored K were also tested. Correction for P was performed using principal component or structured association analysis. In analyses of simulated and real data, linear mixed models that corrected for K were able to control for type-I error, regardless of whether they also corrected for P. In contrast, correction for P alone in linear models was insufficient. The power and precision of linear mixed models with and without correction for P were similar. Furthermore, power, precision, and type-I error rate were comparable in linear mixed models incorporating pedigree and genomic relationships. In summary, in association studies using samples with both P and K, ancestries estimated using principal components or structured assignment were not sufficient to correct type-I errors. In such cases type-I errors may be controlled by use of linear mixed models with relationships derived from either pedigree or from genetic markers. © 2014 Kadri et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kadri, N. K., Guldbrandtsen, B., Sørensen, P., & Sahana, G. (2014). Comparison of genome-wide association methods in analyses of admixed populations with complex familial relationships. PLoS ONE, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088926

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free