Abstract
In genome-wide genetic studies with a large number of markers, balancing the type I error rate and power is a challenging issue. Recently proposed false discovery rate (FDR) approaches are promising solutions to this problem. Using the 100 simulated datasets of a genome-wide marker map spaced about 3 cM and phenotypes from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14, we studied the type I error rate and power of Storey's FDR approach, and compared it to the traditional Bonferroni procedure. We confirmed that Storey's FDR approach had a strong control of FDR. We found that Storey's FDR approach only provided weak control of family-wise error rate (FWER). For these simulated datasets, Storey's FDR approach only had slightly higher power than the Bonferroni procedure. In conclusion, Storey's FDR approach is more powerful than the Bonferroni procedure if strong control of FDR or weak control of FWER is desired. Storey's FDR approach has little power advantage over the Bonferroni procedure if there is low linkage disequilibrium among the markers. Further evaluation of the type I error rate and power of the FDR approaches for higher linkage disequilibrium and for haplotype analyses is warranted.
Highlights
Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most frequent types of polymorphisms and are commonly used in association mapping of candidate genomic regions
We have evaluated the false discovery rate (FDR), family-wise error rate (FWER), and power of Storey's FDR approach, for a genome-wide association study with a closely spaced marker map
We found FDR was slightly inflated for Storey's FDR approach based on 1,469 tests that are mostly independent using 100 simulated datasets
Summary
Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most frequent types of polymorphisms and are commonly used in association mapping of candidate genomic regions. How to efficiently control the false positive rate, or type I error rate, when a large number of tests are conducted in a genome-wide study is a challenging problem. It is of importance to control the probability of having one or more false significant tests. This probability is commonly referred as the family-wise error rate (FWER). There can be different types of controls for FWER: weak, exact, and strong, corresponding to conditioning on A = all null hypotheses are true (P(V > 0|A)), B = the exact set of truly null hypotheses (P(V > 0|B)), and C = any subset of null hypotheses are true (P(V > 0|C)), respectively. While it is most desirable to have exact control of FWER, it is impossible to calculate a p-
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.