Cited by 12Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Powerful designs for genetic association studies that consider twins and sibling pairs with discordant genotypes

Wessel, Jennifer, Schork, Andrew J., Tiwari, Hemant K., Schork, Nicholas J.·2007·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Genetic association studies are becoming commonplace due to the availability of cost‐effective yet sophisticated DNA sequencing and genotyping resources and technologies. In addition, technologies designed to identify molecular and subclinical phenotypes that reflect disease pathogenesis are continually being developed and refined (consider, e.g., imaging technologies, microarray‐based gene expression and proteomic platforms, histological analyses of excised tissues, etc.). Unfortunately, the large‐scale use of many of these molecular and subclinical phenotyping technologies in genetic association studies is difficult logistically and is currently cost‐prohibitive. In this paper, we consider efficient designs for testing the association between particular genetic variations and expensive, yet appropriate, subclinical phenotypes of relevance to a disease that take advantage of twins or sibling pairs discordant for genotypes at the locus (or loci) being tested. We demonstrate that including genotypically discordant twins or siblings in an association study can result in a substantial increase in power over designs that use monozygotic twins or only unrelated individuals. We ultimately argue that, from a practical standpoint, sampling from existing family or twin‐based cohorts in which: (1) follow‐up studies of a genetic association are warranted in order to assess the in vivo significance of an association with respect to more refined pathological phenotypes; and/or (2) large‐scale, genome‐wide linkage and association studies have been pursued that have focused on clinical endpoints for which the study subjects have consented to more elaborate follow‐up studies, is a powerful way to test associations. Genet. Epidemiol. 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gepi.20241

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approaches that capture subtle synergistic effects among many loci in a region, or among different variant types affecting gene function, such as sequence- or functional-similarity-based methods, are probably also suitable.

    “However, methods which can account for subtle synergistic effects of many loci within a defined region and/or different forms of variation that might contribute to gene function, such as those rooted in sequence or functional similarity56, 57, 87, 88 are also likely to be appropriate.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 12

Authors
Wessel, J., Schork, A. J., Tiwari, H. K., & Schork, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Scripps Research Institute (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Corresponding author
Schork, Nicholas J.
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-04
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
789-796
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2029921560
Cited by
12
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01gm074913-05)
  • National Institute on Aging (U19AG023122)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R01 HL/MH 065571-02, U01HL064777, R01HL070137, R01 HL074730-02S, R01HL074730, R01HL055673)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH065571)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM74913)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01 DK 52431, R01DK052431)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P20RR016430)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
statistical power, discordant twins, monozygotic twins, family-based cohort, follow-up study
MeSH terms
Follow-Up Studies, Gene Expression Regulation, Genotype, Humans, Models, Genetic, Twins, Monozygotic, Linkage Disequilibrium, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Proteome, Siblings, Quantitative Trait Loci

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