Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot Password? Reset your password

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login (Shibboleth)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Table of Contents
Vol. 66, No. 4, 2008
Issue release date: October 2008
Section title: Original Paper
Free Access
Hum Hered 2008;66:223–237

Practical Considerations for Dividing Data into Subsets Prior to PPL Analysis

Govil M.a · Vieland V.J.b
aDepartment of Oral Biology and Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., bBattelle Center of Mathematical Medicine, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
email Corresponding Author

Manika Govil

Suite 500 Cellomics/Bridgeside Point

100 Technology Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (USA)

Tel. +1 412 648 9204, Fax +1 412 648 8779, E-Mail govil@pitt.edu

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Objective: The PPL, a class of statistics for complex trait genetic mapping in humans, utilizes Bayesian sequential updating to accumulate evidence for or against linkage across potentially heterogeneous data (sub)sets. Here, we systematically explore the relative efficacy of alternative subsetting approaches for purposes of PPL calculation. Methods: We simulated genotypes for three pedigree sets (sib pairs; 2–3 generations; ≧4 generations) based on families from an ongoing study. For each pedigree set, 100 replicates were generated under different levels of heterogeneity (1000 under ‘no linkage’). Within each replicate, updating was performed across subsets defined randomly (RAND2, RAND4), by true (TRUE) linkage status, with a realistic (REAL) classification, by individual pedigree (PED), or without any subsetting (NONE). Results: Under ‘linkage’, REAL yields larger PPLs compared to NONE, RAND2, RAND4, or PED. Under ‘no linkage’, RAND2, RAND4 and PED yield PPLs close to NONE. Conclusions: We have examined the impact of different subsetting strategies on the sampling behavior of the PPL. Our results underscore the utility of finding variables that can help delineate more homogeneous data subsets and demonstrate that, once such variables are found, sequential updating can be highly beneficial in the presence of appreciable heterogeneity at a linked locus, without inflation at an unlinked locus.

© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: September 24, 2007
Accepted: November 16, 2007
Published online: July 09, 2008
Issue release date: October 2008

Number of Print Pages: 15
Number of Figures: 5
Number of Tables: 6

ISSN: 0001-5652 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0062 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HHE

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.