Genome-wide testing platforms are increasingly used to promote "agnostic" approaches to the discovery of gene variants associated with the risk of many common diseases and quantitative traits. The early track record of genome-wide association (GWA) studies suggests that some proposed associations are replicated quite consistently with large-scale subsequent evidence from multiple studies, others have a more inconsistent replication record, some have failed to be replicated by independent investigators and many more early proposed associations await further replication. An important question is how to calibrate the credibility of these postulated associations. A simple Bayesian method is applied here to achieve such calibration. The variability of the estimated credibility is examined under different assumptions. Empirical examples are drawn from existing GWA studies. It is demonstrated that the credibility of different proposed associations can cover a very wide range. The credibility of specific associations usually remains relatively robust when different plausible assumptions are made (within a reasonable range) for the prior odds of an association being true, or the magnitude of the anticipated effect size for genetic associations. Heterogeneity and bias assumptions can have a more major impact on the credibility estimates and thus they need very careful consideration in each case. Credibility calibration may be used in conjunction with qualitative criteria for the appraisal of the cumulative evidence that take into consideration the amount, consistency, and protection from bias in the data.
"Power would be only 20% for a minor allele frequency of 2% and odds ratio of 1.15, but it would be 78% for the same minor allele frequency of 2% and odds ratio of 1.3. Furthermore , for associations with uncorrected p < 0.05, we also expressed the strength of the putative associations by calculating the respective Bayes factor, assuming that average genetic effects for PD susceptibility with common variants may reflect odds ratios of 1.30 and using a lump-and-smear prior, as described by Ioannidis (Ioannidis, 2008). Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 4.2.7 and STATA 10.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: High-profile studies have provided conflicting results regarding the involvement of the Omi/HtrA2 gene in Parkinson's disease (PD) susceptibility. Therefore, we performed a large-scale analysis of the association of common Omi/HtrA2 variants in the Genetic Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease (GEO-PD) consortium. GEO-PD sites provided clinical and genetic data including affection status, gender, ethnicity, age at study, age at examination (all subjects); age at onset and family history of PD (patients). Genotyping was performed for the five most informative SNPs spanning the Omi/HtrA2 gene in approximately 2-3 kb intervals (rs10779958, rs2231250, rs72470544, rs1183739, rs2241028). Fixed as well as random effect models were used to provide summary risk estimates of Omi/HtrA2 variants. The 20 GEO-PD sites provided data for 6378 cases and 8880 controls. No overall significant associations for the five Omi/HtrA2 SNPs and PD were observed using either fixed effect or random effect models. The summary odds ratios ranged between 0.98 and 1.08 and the estimates of between-study heterogeneity were not large (non-significant Q statistics for all 5 SNPs; I(2) estimates 0-28%). Trends for association were seen for participants of Scandinavian descent for rs2241028 (OR 1.41, p=0.04) and for rs1183739 for age at examination (cut-off 65 years; OR 1.17, p=0.02), but these would not be significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons and their Bayes factors were only modest. This largest association study performed to define the role of any gene in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease revealed no overall strong association of Omi/HtrA2 variants with PD in populations worldwide.
Neurobiology of aging 03/2011; 32(3):548.e9-18. DOI:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.11.021 · 5.01 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Early genome-wide association (GWA) studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) have not been able to yield conclusive, replicable signals of association, perhaps due to limited sample size. We aimed to investigate whether association signals derived from the meta-analysis of the first two GWA investigations might be replicable in different populations. We examined six single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (rs1000291, rs1865997, rs2241743, rs2282048, rs2313982, and rs3018626) that had reached nominal significance with at least two of three different strategies proposed in a previous analysis of the original GWA studies. Investigators from the "Genetic Epidemiology of Parkinson's Disease" (GEOPD) consortium were invited to join in this study. Ten teams contributed replication data from 3,458 PD cases and 3,719 controls. The data from the two previously published GWAs (599 PD cases, 592 controls and 443 sibling pairs) were considered as well. All data were synthesized using both fixed and random effects models. The summary allelic odds ratios were ranging from 0.97 to 1.09 by random effects, when all data were included. The summary estimates of the replication data sets (excluding the original GWA data) were very close to 1.00 (range 0.98-1.09) and none of the effects were nominally statistically significant. The replication data sets had significantly different results than the GWA data. Our data do not support evidence that any of these six SNPs reflect susceptibility markers for PD. Much stronger signals of statistical significance in GWA platforms are needed to have substantial chances of replication. Specifically in PD genetics, this would require much larger GWA studies and perhaps novel analytical techniques.
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics 01/2009; 153B(1):220-8. DOI:10.1002/ajmg.b.30980 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.