Recommended Joint and Meta-Analysis Strategies for Case-Control Association Testing of Single Low-Count Variants

• Published in: Genetic epidemiology Vol. 37; no. 6; pp. 539 - 550
• Main Authors: Ma, Clement, Blackwell, Tom, Boehnke, Michael, Scott, Laura J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2013; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Calibration; Case-Control Studies; Computer Simulation; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - genetics; Gene Frequency; Genetic Variation; Humans; joint analysis; Logistic Models; Logistics; low-frequency variants; Meta-analysis; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Models, Genetic; single nucleotide polymorphisms; single variant tests; Studies; meta-analysis; single nucleotide polymorphisms; single variant tests; joint analysis; low-frequency variants
• ISSN: 0741-0395; 1098-2272
• DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21742

ABSTRACT In genome‐wide association studies of binary traits, investigators typically use logistic regression to test common variants for disease association within studies, and combine association results across studies using meta‐analysis. For common variants, logistic regression tests are well calibrated, and meta‐analysis of study‐specific association results is only slightly less powerful than joint analysis of the combined individual‐level data. In recent sequencing and dense chip based association studies, investigators increasingly test low‐frequency variants for disease association. In this paper, we seek to (1) identify the association test with maximal power among tests with well controlled type I error rate and (2) compare the relative power of joint and meta‐analysis tests. We use analytic calculation and simulation to compare the empirical type I error rate and power of four logistic regression based tests: Wald, score, likelihood ratio, and Firth bias‐corrected. We demonstrate for low‐count variants (roughly minor allele count [MAC] < 400) that: (1) for joint analysis, the Firth test has the best combination of type I error and power; (2) for meta‐analysis of balanced studies (equal numbers of cases and controls), the score test is best, but is less powerful than Firth test based joint analysis; and (3) for meta‐analysis of sufficiently unbalanced studies, all four tests can be anti‐conservative, particularly the score test. We also establish MAC as the key parameter determining test calibration for joint and meta‐analysis.