The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Genetic model testing and statistical power in population‐based association studies of quantitative traits
Abstract
The optimal method for considering different genetic models in association studies is not clear. We compared analytical strategies that use different genetic models to analyze genotype–phenotype information from association studies of quantitative traits in unrelated individuals. We created simulated datasets where the minor alleles are causal with an additive, dominant, or recessive mode of inheritance over a range of allele frequencies. We then computed power to detect these causal alleles using one or a combination of statistical models in a standard regression framework, including corrections for the multiple testing incurred by analyzing multiple models. Our results show that, as expected, maximal power is achieved when we test a single genetic model that matches the actual underlying mode of inheritance of the causal allele. When the inheritance pattern of the causal allele is unknown, the co‐dominant model, a single two degrees of freedom test, has good overall performance in any of the three simple modes of inheritance simulated. Alternatively, it is slightly more powerful to analyze all three genetic models together (additive, dominant, and recessive), but only if the significance thresholds used to correct for analyzing multiple models are appropriately determined (such as by permutation). Finally, a commonly employed approach, testing the additive model alone, performs poorly for recessive causal alleles when the minor allele frequency is not close to 50%. Our observations were confirmed by analyzing an existing genetic association dataset in which we detect the effect of a KCNJ11 variant on insulinogenic index in unrelated non‐diabetic individuals. Genet. Epidemiol. 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges
McCarthy, M. I., Abecasis, G. R., Cardon, L. R., Goldstein, D. B., Little, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Hirschhorn, J. N. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2344 · Cited by 2,891
Self-citationA comprehensive 1000 Genomes–based genome-wide association meta-analysis of coronary artery disease
the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium (2015) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3396 · Cited by 2,447
Genome-wide association studies
Uffelmann, E., Huang, Q. Q., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., Okada, Y., Martin, A. R., Martin, H. C., Lappalainen, T., & Posthuma, D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00056-9 · Cited by 1,849
Chapter 11: Genome-wide association studies
Bush, W. S., & Moore, J. H. (2012) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002822 · Cited by 1,171
Psaty, B. M., O'Donnell, C. J., Gudnason, V., Lunetta, K. L., Folsom, A. R., Rotter, J. I., Uitterlinden, A. G., Harris, T. B., Witteman, J. C. M., & Boerwinkle, E. (2009) · Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics · doi:10.1161/circgenetics.108.829747 · Cited by 599
Metadata
- Authors
- Lettre, G., Lange, C., & Hirschhorn, J. N.
- Venue
- Genetic Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 358-362
- ISSN
- 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2272
- OpenAlex
- W2127190573
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genetic model testing and statistical power in population‐based association studies of quantitative traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/gepi.20217
- The paper
- Lettre, G., Lange, C., & Hirschhorn, J. N. (2007). Genetic model testing and statistical power in population‐based association studies of quantitative traits. Genetic Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.20217
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.