Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Dec 30;6 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S71.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S71.

A comparison of five methods for selecting tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of five methods for selecting tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms

Kelly M Burkett et al. BMC Genet. .

Abstract

Our goal was to compare methods for tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) with respect to the power to detect disease association under differing haplotype-disease association models. We were also interested in the effect that SNP selection samples, consisting of either cases, controls, or a mixture, would have on power. We investigated five previously described algorithms for choosing tagSNPS: two that picked SNPs based on haplotype structure (Chapman-haplotypic and Stram), two that picked SNPs based on pair-wise allelic association (Chapman-allelic and Cousin), and one control method that chose equally spaced SNPs (Zhai). In two disease-associated regions from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data, we tested the association between tagSNP genotype and disease over the tagSNP sets chosen by each method for each sampling scheme. This was repeated for 100 replicates to estimate power. The two allelic methods chose essentially all SNPs in the region and had nearly optimal power. The two haplotypic methods chose about half as many SNPs. The haplotypic methods had poor performance compared to the allelic methods in both regions. We expected an improvement in power when the selection sample contained cases; however, there was only moderate variation in power between the sampling approaches for each method. Finally, when compared to the haplotypic methods, the reference method performed as well or worse in the region with ancestral disease haplotype structure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stram DO, Haiman CA, Hirschhorn JN, Altshuler D, Kolonel LN, Henderson BE, Pike MC. Choosing haplotype-tagging SNPs based on unphased genotype data using a preliminary sample of unrelated subjects with an example from the Multiethnic Cohort Study. Hum Hered. 2003;55:27–36. doi: 10.1159/000071807. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chapman JM, Cooper JD, Todd JA, Clayton DG. Detecting disease associations due to linkage disequilibrium using haplotype tags: a class of tests and the determinants of statistical power. Hum Hered. 2003;56:18–31. doi: 10.1159/000073729. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cousin E, Genin E, Mace S, Ricard S, Chansac C, del Zompo M, Deleuze JF. Association studies in candidate genes: strategies to select SNPs to be tested. Hum Hered. 2003;56:151–159. doi: 10.1159/000073200. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhai W, Todd MJ, Nielsen R. Is haplotype block identification useful for association mapping studies? Genet Epidemiol. 2004;27:80–83. doi: 10.1002/gepi.20014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang K, Deng M, Chen T, Waterman MS, Sun F. A dynamic programming algorithm for haplotype block partitioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:7335–7339. doi: 10.1073/pnas.102186799. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources