Lecture 15
Biostatistics And Medical Informatics 666 with Abecasis at University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
About this note
By: Anonymous
Created: 2008-06-08
File Size: 35 page(s)
Views: 1
Created: 2008-06-08
File Size: 35 page(s)
Views: 1
About StudyBlue
STUDYBLUE makes things that make you better at school.
Things like online flashcards with photos and audio.
Things like personalized quizzes and friendly reminders about when (and what) to study next.
Think of it as a digital backpack™: access to all of your study materials online and on your phone.
STUDYBLUE exists to make studying efficient and effective for every student, for free. Join us.
“I have been getting MUCH better grades on all my tests for school. Flash cards, notes, and quizzes are great on here. Thanks!”
Kathy
Kathy
Sign up (free) to study this.
Replacing IBS with IBD: The MLS Method Biostatistics 666 Lecture 15 Previous Lecture z Analysis of Affected Relative Pairs z Test for Increased Sharing at Marker z Expected Amount of IBS Sharing Previous Lecture: Expected IBS Sharing z Calculated probability of IBS for each IBD state z Probability of IBD state depends on relationship ? Under the null hypothesis of no linkage ? = ===== 2 0 )|()|()|( j RjIBDPjIBDiIBSPRiIBSP Shortcomings of IBS Method z All sharing is weighted equally ? Sharing a rare allele ? Sharing a common allele ? Sharing homozygous genotype ? Sharing heterozygous genotype z Inefficient. ? Data contains additional information that is being ignored. Today z A likelihood based approach z Evaluate linkage in fully informative pairs z An E-M algorithm for practical settings z MLS method, Risch (1990) Simple Case z If IBD could be observed z Each pair of individuals scored as ? IBD=0 ? IBD=1 ? IBD=2 z Evaluate likelihood for null and alternative hypothesis The Model z Depends on three parameters z 0 , z 1 , z 2 ? Probability of sharing 0, 1 and 2 alleles IBD z Under the null, determined by relationship z Under the alternative, determined by genetic model Sib Pair Likelihood (Fully Informative Data) () () () 210 210 210 4 1 2 1 4 1 ??? hypothesis ealternativ Under the )()()( :hypothesis null Under the IBDIBDIBD IBDIBDIBD nnn nnn zzzL L = = Testing for Linkage z Evaluate likelihood at null hypothesis z Evaluate likelihood at MLE z Compare alternatives using likelihood ratio test Commonly Used Test Statistics ),,(ln2)?,?,?(ln2 ),,( )?,?,?( ln2 ),,( )?,?,?( log 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 0210 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 0 210 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 0 210 10 ===?= === = === = zzzLzzzL zzzL zzzL zzzL zzzL LOD ? Example 1 1 2 1 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ IBD=1 1 2 2 1 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ IBD=2 5x 5x Example z Assume that 10 sib-pairs are examined ? 5 share 2 alleles IBD ? 5 share 1 allele IBD z Calculate likelihood for null z Calculate MLEs z Calculate LOD score z Evaluate LOD for each pair In real life? z Markers are only partially informative z IBD sharing is equivocal ? Some uncertainty removed by examining relatives z Need an alternative likelihood ? Should allow for partially informative data Desirable Properties z Also depends on parameters z 0 , z 1 , z 2 ? Probability of sharing 0, 1 and 2 alleles IBD z Can incorporate partial information on IBD sharing z For fully informative data, equivalent to previous likelihood For A Single Family ij iij j ijj j ii w jIBDGenotypesPw wzjIBDGenotypesPASPjIBDPL ateproportion needonly We )|( defines (1990)Risch )|()|( 2 0 2 0 == ==== ?? == Likelihood and LOD Score 210 2 4 1 1 2 1 0 4 1 221100 10 210 z,z,z of MLEs at the evaluated LOD theis statistic MLS The ??? log ),,( ? ?? ++ ++ = = i iii iii i j ijj www wzwzwz LOD wzzzzL Example: Scoring of w ij 1 1 2 1 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ 1 2 2 1 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ In this case, only one of the weights is non-zero for each family. More interesting examples: w ij 1 1 2 1 / 1 2/ 2/ 2/ 1 2 2 2 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ 2 2 2 2 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ In these cases, multiple weights are non-zero (but equal) for each family. More interesting examples: w ij 2 2/ 2 2/ In this case, relative weights depend on allele frequency. How to maximize likelihood? z If all families are informative ? Use sample proportions of IBD=0, 1, 2 z If some families are uninformative ? Use an E-M algorithm ? At each stage generate complete dataset with fractional counts ? Iterate until estimates of LOD and z parameters are stable Assigning Partial Counts in E-M ? ? = = = == == = == = == 2 0 2 0 )|()|( )|()|( )|()|( )|( k ikk ijj k i wz wz kIBDGenotypesPASPkIBDP jIBDGenotypesPASPjIBDP L jIBDGenotypesPASPjIBDP GenotypesjIBDP Example 2 2/ 2 2/ IBD=? 1 2 2 1 / 2 2/ 2/ 2/ IBD=2 5x 5x Assume a bi-allelic marker where the two alleles have identical frequencies. Example of E-M Steps Other z0 z1 z2 IBD=0 IBD=1 IBD=2 IBD=2 LOD LODi LODu 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.56 2.22 2.22 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.056 0.222 0.722 0.08 0.66 4.26 5 3.19 2.30 0.89 0.008 0.066 0.926 0.01 0.17 4.82 5 4.01 2.84 1.16 0.001 0.017 0.982 0.00 0.04 4.96 5 4.20 2.97 1.23 0.000 0.004 0.996 0.00 0.01 4.99 5 4.25 3.00 1.24 0.000 0.001 0.999 0.00 0.00 5.00 5 4.26 3.01 1.25 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 5 4.26 3.01 1.25 Equivocal FamiliesParameters Properties of Pair Analyses Explored by Risch z Effect of marker informativeness z Effect of adding relative genotypes z Size of genetic effect z Degree of relationship PIC: Measure of Marker Informativeness z Probability that alleles of parent can be distinguished in offspring ? Botstein et al, 1980. ? Markers that could track dominant alleles z Probability that parent is heterozygous and informative in relation to spouse z In general: z For a equally frequent alleles z PIC <= Heterozygosity PIC ? Definition ??? ==+= ??= n i n i n ij jii pppPIC 111 22 )(21 3 11 a a a a PIC ? ? ? = Some PICs and Heterozygosities Alleles PIC H 20.380.50 30.590.67 40.700.75 50.770.80 80.860.8 10 0.89 0.90 20 0.95 0.95 Marker Informativeness Proportion of LOD Retained 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 .40.60.81.0 Marker Informativeness P r opor t i on of E x pe c t e d MLS Sibs 2nd Degree 3rd Degree Marker Informativeness Gene of Modest Effect (? O =3) Expected LOD Score 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 .40.60.81.0 Marker Informativeness Ex pe c t e d M L S Sibs 2nd Degree 3rd Degree Marker Informativeness Gene of Larger Effect (? O =10) Expected LOD Score 0 3 6 9 12 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Marker Informativeness E x p e ct ed MLS Sibs 2nd Degree 3rd Degree Genotypes of Other Family Members z Expected LOD score decreases ? by < 33% if only sib-pairs are typed ? by < 60% for second degree relatives ? by < 70% for third degree relatives z Genotyping effort decreases by ? by 50% if only sib-pairs are typed ? by 60% if only second degree relatives typed ? by 75% if only third degree relatives typed Quick Comment on Literature z Greenwood and Schork (2004) suggested that uninformative families could bias MLS z However, their results use a poor estimate for MLEs z If an E-M algorithm is used, there is no problem Today ? z Describe a likelihood model based on IBD sharing for pairs of individuals z Model accommodates partially informative families z Maximum LOD score can be calculated using an E-M algorithm Recommended Reading z Risch (1990) ? Linkage Strategies for Genetically Complex Traits. III. The Effect of Marker Polymorphism on Analysis of Affected Relative Pairs ? Am J Hum Genet 46:242-253 z Introduces MLS method for linkage analysis ? Still, one of the best methods for analysis pair data z Evaluates different sampling strategies ? Results were later corrected by Risch (1992) Recommended Reading z Risch (1992) ? Corrections to Linkage strategies for genetically complex traits. III. The effect of marker polymorphism on analysis of affected relative pairs. ? Am J Hum Genet 51:673-675 z Evaluates utility of parental genotype data Goncalo Microsoft PowerPoint - 666.15 -- The MLS Method
Back
Next
About this note
By: Anonymous
Created: 2008-06-08
File Size: 35 page(s)
Views: 1
Created: 2008-06-08
File Size: 35 page(s)
Views: 1
About StudyBlue
STUDYBLUE makes things that make you better at school.
Things like online flashcards with photos and audio.
Things like personalized quizzes and friendly reminders about when (and what) to study next.
Think of it as a digital backpack™: access to all of your study materials online and on your phone.
STUDYBLUE exists to make studying efficient and effective for every student, for free. Join us.
“I have been getting MUCH better grades on all my tests for school. Flash cards, notes, and quizzes are great on here. Thanks!”
Kathy
Kathy