Confounding from cryptic relatedness in case-control association studies.
Case-control association studies are widely used in the search for genetic variants that contribute to human diseases. It has long been known that such studies may suffer from high rates of false positives if there is unrecognized population structure. It is perhaps less widely appreciated that so-called "cryptic relatedness" (i.e., kinship among the cases or controls that is not known to the investigator) might also potentially inflate the false positive rate. Until now there has been little work to assess how serious this problem is likely to be in practice. In this paper, we develop a formal model of cryptic relatedness, and study its impact on association studies. We provide simple expressions that predict the extent of confounding due to cryptic relatedness. Surprisingly, these expressions are functions of directly observable parameters. Our analytical results show that, for well-designed studies in outbred populations, the degree of confounding due to cryptic relatedness will usually be negligible. However, in contrast, studies where there is a sampling bias toward collecting relatives may indeed suffer from excessive rates of false positives. Furthermore, cryptic relatedness may be a serious concern in founder populations that have grown rapidly and recently from a small size. As an example, we analyze the impact of excess relatedness among cases for six phenotypes measured in the Hutterite population.
Voight
Benjamin F
BF
Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. bvoight@uchicago.edu
Pritchard
Jonathan K
JK
D015982:Bias; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D005006:Ethnicity / Q000235:genetics*; D005190:Family; D030342:Genetic Diseases, Inborn / Q000235:genetics*; D005819:Genetic Markers; D006801:Humans; D008957:Models, Genetic; D010641:Phenotype; D011156:Population Density; D014481:United States
D005819:Genetic Markers