Cited by 1,527Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenomics and Rare DiseasesGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Methods for Detecting Associations with Rare Variants for Common Diseases: Application to Analysis of Sequence Data

Open access
Li, Bingshan, Leal, Suzanne M.·2008·The American Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

Although whole-genome association studies using tagSNPs are a powerful approach for detecting common variants, they are underpowered for detecting associations with rare variants. Recent studies have demonstrated that common diseases can be due to functional variants with a wide spectrum of allele frequencies, ranging from rare to common. An effective way to identify rare variants is through direct sequencing. The development of cost-effective sequencing technologies enables association studies to use sequence data from candidate genes and, in the future, from the entire genome. Although methods used for analysis of common variants are applicable to sequence data, their performance might not be optimal. In this study, it is shown that the collapsing method, which involves collapsing genotypes across variants and applying a univariate test, is powerful for analyzing rare variants, whereas multivariate analysis is robust against inclusion of noncausal variants. Both methods are superior to analyzing each variant individually with univariate tests. In order to unify the advantages of both collapsing and multiple-marker tests, we developed the Combined Multivariate and Collapsing (CMC) method and demonstrated that the CMC method is both powerful and robust. The CMC method can be applied to either candidate-gene or whole-genome sequence data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.06.024

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The power to detect an association between a single rare variant is low even in very large samples.

    “Association analyses involving rare variants are not as straightforward as analyses involving common variations since the power to detect an association between a single rare variant is low in even very large samples (Figure 1).14, 28, 29”
  • Collapsing sets of rare variants into a single group and testing their collective frequency differences can overcome the power issues associated with testing rare variants individually.

    “In order to overcome power issues associated with testing rare variants individually, one could ‘collapse’ sets of rare variants into a single group and test their collective frequency differences between cases and controls.28, 30”
  • Testing rare variants individually with standard contingency table and regression methods is highly problematic because such tests have poor power to detect small rare variant frequency differences between groups.

    “This strategy is highly problematic given, for example, the poor power that such statistical tests have to detect small rare variant frequency differences between diagnostic or phenotypic groups (figures 1A and 1B).14, 28, 29”
  • The CMC statistic appropriately controls type I error rates even when non-functional variants are included in the set of variants to be tested, and it has better power than the standard CAST method.

    “The CMC statistic has desirable properties in that it appropriately controls type I error rates even when non-functional variants are included in the set of variants to be tested, and has better power than the standard CAST method.”
  • Regression models provide a flexible framework for assessing the contribution of collections of rare variants to a phenotype.

    “Such methods provide a flexible framework for assessing the contribution of collections of rare variants to a phenotype.28, 33”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, B., & Leal, S. M.
Affiliations
Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Leal, Suzanne M.
Venue
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
311-321
ISSN
0002-9297 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058148991
Cited by
1,527
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 126 · 2015: 124 · 2014: 156 · 2013: 138 · 2012: 116
FWCI
42.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01-DC03594, R01DC003594)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS049130)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
rare variants, common diseases, collapsing methods, multivariate analysis, whole genome sequencing, candidate genes, tag SNPs, statistical power
MeSH terms
Genetic Markers, Haplotypes, Humans, Models, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Linkage Disequilibrium, Genome, Human, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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