Developmental Dyslexia – Recurrence Risk Estimates from a German Bi-Center Study Using the Single Proband Sib Pair DesignZiegler A.a · König I.R.a · Deimel W.b · Plume E.c · Nöthen M.M.d · Propping P.d · Kleensang A.a · Müller-Myhsok B.e · Warnke A.c · Remschmidt H.b · Schulte-Körne G.b
aInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, bKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie des Kindes- und Jugendalters, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, cKlinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, dInstitut für Humangenetik, Universität Bonn, Bonn, and eMax-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie München, München, Germany
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
Article / Publication Details
Objective: Several studies have demonstrated a genetic component for dyslexia. However, both segregation and linkage analyses show contradictory results pointing at the necessity of an optimal ascertainment scheme for molecular genetic studies. Previously, we have argued that the single proband sib pair design (SPSP) would be optimal. The aims of this paper therefore are to demonstrate the practicability of the SPSP design and the estimation of recurrence risks for reading and writing. Methods: We assessed spelling and reading in a family sample ascertained through the SPSP design. 287 families with at least two siblings and their parents were recruited. At least one child was affected with spelling disorder according to a one standard deviation (1SD) discrepancy criterion. Results: Mean values for probands and their siblings were different for both the spelling and the reading phenotype. For the probands, variances of the phenotype spelling were smaller. These effects became stronger with more extreme selection criteria. Both siblings fulfilled the 1SD criterion for spelling and reading in 60.3 and 28.9% of the families, respectively, indicating a low cost efficiency of the double proband sib pair approach. A recurrence risk of 4.52 (CI: 4.07–4.93) was obtained for spelling when the 1SD criterion was applied to both siblings. Recurrence risk estimates were similar for reading. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the suitability of the SPSP design for genetic analysis of dyslexia. The recurrence risk estimates may be used for determining sample sizes in gene mapping studies.
© 2005 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.
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.