title: Power, validity, bias and robustness of family-based association analysis methods in the presence of linkage for late onset diseases.
abstract: This simulation-based report compares the performance of five methods of association analysis in the presence of linkage using extended sibships: the Family-Based Association Test (FBAT), Empirical Variance FBAT (EV-FBAT), Conditional Logistic Regression (CLR), Robust CLR (R-CLR) and Sibship Disequilibrium Test (SDT). The two tests accounting for residual familial correlation (EV-FBAT and R-CLR) and the model-free SDT showed correct test size in all simulated designs, while FBAT and CLR were only valid for small effect sizes. SDT had the lowest power, while CLR had the highest power, generally similar to FBAT and the robust variance analogues. The power of all model-dependent tests dropped when the model was misspecified, although often not substantially. Estimates of genetic effect with CLR and R-CLR were unbiased when the disease locus was analysed but biased when a nearby marker was analysed. This study demonstrates that the genetic effect does not need to be extreme to invalidate tests that ignore familial correlation and confirms that analogous methods using robust variance estimation provide a valid alternative at little cost to power. Overall R-CLR is the best-performing method among these alternatives for the analysis of extended sibship data.
authors.affiliation: Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Wellcome Trust Brenner Building, James's University, Hospital, Leeds, UK. J.Nsengimana@leeds.ac.uk
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Nsengimana
authors.forename: J H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Barrett
mesh_terms: D017668:Age of Onset; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D005190:Family; D020022:Genetic Predisposition to Disease; D016015:Logistic Models; D008957:Models, Genetic
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Dec;67(6):1515-25
references.pmid: 11058432
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Oct;65(4):1170-7
references.pmid: 10486336
references.citation: Genet Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;31(8):883-93
references.pmid: 17565751
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 1993 Mar;52(3):506-16
references.pmid: 8447318
references.citation: Hum Hered. 2000 Jul-Aug;50(4):211-23
references.pmid: 10782012
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Dec;63(6):1886-97
references.pmid: 9837840
references.citation: Genet Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;26(3):186-205
references.pmid: 15022206
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Jan;80(1):178-85
references.pmid: 17160905
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 1997 Mar;60(3):676-90
references.pmid: 9042929
references.citation: Genet Epidemiol. 2007 May;31(4):327-37
references.pmid: 17323371
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jan;66(1):279-92
references.pmid: 10631157
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jul;67(1):244-8
references.pmid: 10831398
references.citation: Nature. 2001 May 10;411(6834):199-204
references.pmid: 11346797
references.citation: Ann Hum Genet. 1997 Jul;61(Pt 4):319-33
references.pmid: 9365785
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Feb;62(2):450-8
references.pmid: 9463321
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jul;67(1):146-54
references.pmid: 10825280