Hum Hered 2003;55:108–116
(DOI:10.1159/000072315)

Effect of Box-Cox Transformation on Power of Haseman-Elston and Maximum-Likelihood Variance Components Tests to Detect Quantitative Trait Loci

Etzel C.J.a · Shete S.a · Beasley T.M.b · Fernandez J.R.b,c,d · Allison D.B.b,c,d · Amos C.I.a
aDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.; bDepartment of Biostatistics, Section on Statistical Genetics, cDepartment of Nutrition Sciences, Division of Physiology and Metabolism, and Clinical Nutrition Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala., USA
email Corresponding Author


 goto top of outline Key Words

  • Box-Cox transformation
  • Kurtosis
  • Sib pair linkage analysis
  • Skewness
  • Non-normality
  • Winsorizing

 goto top of outline Abstract

Non-normality of the phenotypic distribution can affect power to detect quantitative trait loci in sib pair studies. Previously, we observed that Winsorizing the sib pair phenotypes increased the power of quantitative trait locus (QTL) detection for both Haseman-Elston (HE) least-squares tests [Hum Hered 2002;53:59–67] and maximum likelihood-based variance components (MLVC) analysis [Behav Genet (in press)]. Winsorizing the phenotypes led to a slight increase in type 1 error in H-E tests and a slight decrease in type I error for MLVC analysis. Herein, we considered transforming the sib pair phenotypes using the Box-Cox family of transformations. Data were simulated for normal and non-normal (skewed and kurtic) distributions. Phenotypic values were replaced by Box-Cox transformed values. Twenty thousand replications were performed for three H-E tests of linkage and the likelihood ratio test (LRT), the Wald test and other robust versions based on the MLVC method. We calculated the relative nominal inflation rate as the ratio of observed empirical type 1 error divided by the set α level (5, 1 and 0.1% α levels). MLVC tests applied to non-normal data had inflated type I errors (rate ratio greater than 1.0), which were controlled best by Box-Cox transformation and to a lesser degree by Winsorizing. For example, for non-transformed, skewed phenotypes (derived from a 2 distribution with 2 degrees of freedom), the rates of empirical type 1 error with respect to set α level = 0.01 were 0.80, 4.35 and 7.33 for the original H-E test, LRT and Wald test, respectively. For the same α level = 0.01, these rates were 1.12, 3.095 and 4.088 after Winsorizing and 0.723, 1.195 and 1.905 after Box-Cox transformation. Winsorizing reduced inflated error rates for the leptokurtic distribution (derived from a Laplace distribution with mean 0 and variance 8). Further, power (adjusted for empirical type 1 error) at the 0.01 α level ranged from 4.7 to 17.3% across all tests using the non-transformed, skewed phenotypes, from 7.5 to 20.1% after Winsorizing and from 12.6 to 33.2% after Box-Cox transformation. Likewise, power (adjusted for empirical type 1 error) using leptokurtic phenotypes at the 0.01 α level ranged from 4.4 to 12.5% across all tests with no transformation, from 7 to 19.2% after Winsorizing and from 4.5 to 13.8% after Box-Cox transformation. Thus the Box-Cox transformation apparently provided the best type 1 error control and maximal power among the procedures we considered for analyzing a non-normal, skewed distribution (2) while Winzorizing worked best for the non-normal, kurtic distribution (Laplace). We repeated the same simulations using a larger sample size (200 sib pairs) and found similar results.

Copyright © 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel


 goto top of outline References
  1. Fernandez JR, Etzel CJ, Beasley TM, Shete S, Amos CI, Allison DB: Improving the power of sib pair quantitative trait loci detection by phenotype Winsorization. Hum Hered 2002;53:59–67.
  2. Shete S, Beasley TM, Etzel CJ, Fernandez JR, Chen J, Allison DB, Amos CI: Effect of Winsorization on power and type 1 error of variance components and related methods of QTL detection. Behav Genet, in press.
  3. Haseman JK, Elston RC: The investigation of linkage between a quantitative trait and a marker locus. Behav Genet 1972;2:3–19.
  4. Amos CI: Robust variance-components approach for assessing genetic linkage in pedigrees. Am J Hum Genet 1994;54:535–543.
  5. Almasy L, Blangero J: Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:1198–1211.
  6. Elston RC, Buxbaum S, Jacobs KB, Olson JM: Haseman and Elston revisited. Genet Epidemiol 2000;19:1–17.
  7. Elston RC, Shete S: Adding further power to the Haseman and Elston’s (1972) method. GeneScreen 2000;1:63–64.
  8. Forrest WF, Feingold E: Composite statistics for QTL mapping with moderately discordant sibling pairs. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:1642–1660.
  9. Sham PC, Purcell S, Cherny SS, Abecasis GR: Powerful regression-based quantitative-trait linkage analysis of general pedigrees. Am J Hum Genet 2002;71:238–253.
  10. Visscher PM, Hopper JL: Power of regression and maximum likelihood methods to map QTL from sib-pair and DZ twin data. Ann Hum Genet 2001;65:583–601.
  11. Xu X, Weiss S, Xu X, Wei LJ: A unified Haseman-Elston method for testing linkage with quantitative traits. Am J Hum Genet 2000;67:1025–1028.
  12. Sham PC, Purcell S: Equivalence between Haseman-Elston and variance-components linkage analyses for sib pairs. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68:1527–1532.
  13. Amos CI, Zhu DK, Boerwinkle E: Assessing genetic linkage and association with robust components of variance approaches. Ann Hum Genet 1996;60:143–160.

    External Resources

  14. Self SG, Liang K-Y: Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under non-standard conditions. J Am Stat Assoc 1987;82:605–610.
  15. Blackwelder WC, Elston RC: A comparison of sib-pair linkage tests for disease susceptibility loci. Genet Epidemiol 1985;2:85–97.
  16. Allison DB, Fernandez JR, Heo M, Zhu S, Etzel C, Beasley TM, Amos CI: Bias in estimates of quantitative-trait-locus effect in genome scans: demonstration of the phenomenon and a method-of-moments procedure for reducing bias. Am J Hum Genet 2002;70:575–585.
  17. Allison DB, Neale MC, Zannolli R, Schork NJ, Amos CI, Blangero J: Testing the robustness of the likelihood-ratio test in a variance-component quantitative-trait loci-mapping procedure. Am J Hum Genet 1999;65:531–544.
  18. Blangero J, Williams JT, Almasy L: Robust LOD scores for variance component-based linkage analysis. Genet Epidemiol 2000;19(suppl 1):S8–S14.
  19. Amos CI, Zhu DK, Boerwinkle E: Assessing genetic linkage and association with robust components of variance approaches. Ann Hum Genet 1996;60:143–160.

    External Resources

  20. Maclean C, Morton N, Elston R, Yee S: Skewness in commingled distributions. Biometrics 1976;32:695–699.
  21. Elashoff J, Cantor R, Shain S: Power and validity of methods to identify variability genes. Genet Epidemiol 1991;8:381–388.
  22. George V, Elston R: Testing the association between polymorphic markers and quantitative traits in pedigrees. Genet Epidemiol 1987;4:193–201.
  23. Go R, Elston RC, Kaplan E: Efficiency and robustness of pedigree segregation analysis. Am J Hum Genet 1978;30:28–37.
  24. Demenais F, Lathrop M, Laouel J: Robustness and power of the unified model in the analysis of quantitative measurements. Am J Hum Genet 1986;38:228–234.
  25. Johnson N, Kotz S: Continuous Univariate Distributions –1. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970.
  26. Vance JM, Pericak-Vance MA, Elston RC, Conneally PM, Namboodiri KK, Wappner RS, Yu PL: Evidence of genetic variation for alpha-N-acetyl-D-glucosaminidase in black and white populations: a new polymorphism. Am J Med Genet 1980;7:131–140.
  27. Pericak-Vance MA, Vance JM, Elston RC, Namboodiri KK, Fogle TA: Segregation and linkage analysis of alpha-N-acetyl-D-glucosaminidase (NAG) levels in a black family. Am J Med Genet 1985;20:295–306.
  28. Friedlander Y, Kark JD, Cohen T, Eisenberg S, Stein Y: Admixture analysis of high density lipoprotein cholesterol distribution in a Jerusalem population sample. Clin Genet 1983;24:117–127.
  29. Friedlander Y, Kark JD, Kidron M, Bar-On H: Univariate and bivariate admixture analyses of serum glucose and glycated hemoglobin distributions in a Jerusalem population sample. Hum Biol 1995;67:151–170.
  30. Asamoah A, Wilson AF, Elston RC, Dalferes E Jr, Berenson GS: Segregation and linkage analyses of dopamine-beta-hydroxylase activity in a six-generation pedigree. Am J Med Genet 1987;27:613–621.
  31. Wilson AF, Elston RC, Siervogel RM, Tran LD: Linkage of a gene regulating dopamine-beta-hydroxylase activity and the ABO blood group locus. Am J Hum Genet 1988;42:160–166.
  32. Wilson AF, Elston RC, Tran LD, Siervogel RM: Use of the robust sib-pair method to screen for single-locus, multiple-locus, and pleiotropic effects: application to traits related to hypertension. Am J Hum Genet 1991;48:862–872.
  33. Amos CI, Shete S, Gu X: Variance components analysis for genetic linkage of time to onset for disease. Genet Epidemiol 2001;21(suppl 1):S768–S773.
  34. Wang D, Lin S, Cheng R, Gao X, Wright FA: Transformation of sib-pair values for the Haseman-Elston method. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68:1238–1249.

 goto top of outline Author Contacts

C.J. Etzel
Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 189, Houston, TX 77030 (USA)
Email cetzel@manderson.org


 goto top of outline Article Information

Number of Print Pages : 9
Number of Figures : 0, Number of Tables : 3, Number of References : 34


 goto top of outline Publication Details

Human Heredity (International Journal of Human and Medical Genetics)
Founded 1950 as Acta Genetica et Statistica Medica by Gunnar Dahlberg; Continued by M. Hauge (1965–1983)

Vol. 55, No. 2-3, Year 2003 (Cover Date: Released August 2003)

Journal Editor: J. Ott, New York, N.Y.
ISSN: 0001–5652 (print), 1423–0062 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.ch/journals/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 goverment 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.