Effect of Box-Cox Transformation on Power of Haseman-Elston and Maximum-Likelihood Variance Components Tests to Detect Quantitative Trait LociEtzel 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
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
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 χ2 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 (χ2) 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.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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.