↓ Skip to main content

Testing Hardy-Weinberg Proportions in a Frequency-Matched Case-Control Genetic Association Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing Hardy-Weinberg Proportions in a Frequency-Matched Case-Control Genetic Association Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0027642
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Wang, Sanjay Shete

Abstract

In case-control genetic association studies, cases are subjects with the disease and controls are subjects without the disease. At the time of case-control data collection, information about secondary phenotypes is also collected. In addition to studies of primary diseases, there has been some interest in studying genetic variants associated with secondary phenotypes. In genetic association studies, the deviation from Hardy-Weinberg proportion (HWP) of each genetic marker is assessed as an initial quality check to identify questionable genotypes. Generally, HWP tests are performed based on the controls for the primary disease or secondary phenotype. However, when the disease or phenotype of interest is common, the controls do not represent the general population. Therefore, using only controls for testing HWP can result in a highly inflated type I error rate for the disease- and/or phenotype-associated variants. Recently, two approaches, the likelihood ratio test (LRT) approach and the mixture HWP (mHWP) exact test were proposed for testing HWP in samples from case-control studies. Here, we show that these two approaches result in inflated type I error rates and could lead to the removal from further analysis of potential causal genetic variants associated with the primary disease and/or secondary phenotype when the study of primary disease is frequency-matched on the secondary phenotype. Therefore, we proposed alternative approaches, which extend the LRT and mHWP approaches, for assessing HWP that account for frequency matching. The goal was to maintain more (possible causative) single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the sample for further analysis. Our simulation results showed that both extended approaches could control type I error probabilities. We also applied the proposed approaches to test HWP for SNPs from a genome-wide association study of lung cancer that was frequency-matched on smoking status and found that the proposed approaches can keep more genetic variants for association studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 38%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Mathematics 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2011.
All research outputs
#18,301,870
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,699
of 193,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,114
of 141,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,152
of 2,652 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 141,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,652 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.