 Methodology article
 Open Access
 Published:
A multiSNP association test for complex diseases incorporating an optimal Pvalue threshold algorithm in nuclear families
BMC Genomics volume 16, Article number: 381 (2015)
Abstract
Background
Genomewide association studies (GWAS) have become a common approach to identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with complex diseases. As complex diseases are caused by the joint effects of multiple genes, while the effect of individual gene or SNP is modest, a method considering the joint effects of multiple SNPs can be more powerful than testing individual SNPs. The multiSNP analysis aims to test association based on a SNP set, usually defined based on biological knowledge such as gene or pathway, which may contain only a portion of SNPs with effects on the disease. Therefore, a challenge for the multiSNP analysis is how to effectively select a subset of SNPs with promising association signals from the SNP set.
Results
We developed the Optimal Pvalue Threshold Pedigree Disequilibrium Test (OPTPDT). The OPTPDT uses general nuclear families. A variable pvalue threshold algorithm is used to determine an optimal pvalue threshold for selecting a subset of SNPs. A permutation procedure is used to assess the significance of the test. We used simulations to verify that the OPTPDT has correct type I error rates. Our power studies showed that the OPTPDT can be more powerful than the setbased test in PLINK, the multiSNP FBAT test, and the pvalue based test GATES. We applied the OPTPDT to a familybased autism GWAS dataset for genebased association analysis and identified MACROD2AS1 with genomewide significance (pvalue= 2.5 × 10^{− 6}).
Conclusions
Our simulation results suggested that the OPTPDT is a valid and powerful test. The OPTPDT will be helpful for genebased or pathway association analysis. The method is ideal for the secondary analysis of existing GWAS datasets, which may identify a set of SNPs with joint effects on the disease.
Background
Genomewide association studies (GWAS) have become a common approach to identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with complex diseases. Traditional GWAS analysis tested individual SNPs associated with the disease. However, the significant SNPs only explained a small portion of heritability of the complex traits [1]. Complex diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, and Alzheimer disease, are caused by the joint effects of multiple genes, while the effects of individual genes or SNPs are modest. The statistical power for identifying single SNPs with small effects can be low. Therefore, a method that considers the joint effects of multiple SNPs will be more powerful than the singleSNP test.
There have been many multiSNP association tests proposed for genetic studies. Han and Pan [2] classified the multiSNP tests for unrelated cases and controls into five categories. Methods in the first three categories compare the difference in allele frequencies [3, 4], HardyWeinberg disequilibrium [5], and linkage disequilibrium (LD) [6] between cases and controls. Methods in the other two categories are based on the genomic distancebased regression [7] and haplotype similarity approaches [8, 9]. Moreover, haplotypebased tests [10], which compare the difference in haplotype frequencies between cases and controls, can be classified in the same category of methods that compare the difference in allele frequencies.
Many familybased multiSNP association tests are also available. A multiSNP test [11] similar to the HotellingT^{2} test based on the singleSNP FBAT statistics [12] and a multiSNP statistic [13] based on combining the weighted singleSNP FBAT statistics were developed. These methods can be classified into the category of comparing allele frequencies between affected siblings and controls (such as parents and unaffected siblings). The LDbased approach was also extended to a familybased method by comparing LD patterns between affected siblings and controls [14]. The transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) [15] was extended to multiSNP tests based on the haplotype similarity approaches [16, 17]. Finally, several haplotypebased tests were also developed for analyzing family data [18–20].
Biological functions, such as genes or pathways, are commonly used to define SNP sets in the multiSNP analysis. The multiSNP analyses which select SNPs based on genes and pathways are referred to as the genebased and pathwaybased analyses, respectively. Current genebased or pathwaybased methods can be divided into three categories based on the data they use: case–control [21, 22], family [11, 23], and pvalue based methods [24, 25]. Case–control and familybased methods use raw genotypes in unrelated cases and controls and families, respectively, while the pvalue based methods use pvalues from singleSNP association tests. One of the advantages for methods using raw genotypes is that permutation can be used to account for LD between SNPs and to correct for gene or pathway sizes. In contrast, pvalue based methods have the advantages of accommodating different study designs, and pvalues are easier to share in a consortium than the raw genotypes [26].
Gene or pathwaybased methods provide biologically meaningful ways to select a set of SNPs within a gene or a pathway for the multiSNP analysis. However, testing all the SNPs in the set may decrease the statistical power, particularly when there is only a portion of the SNPs that have effects on the disease in a large gene or a large pathway. Tag SNPs, which can predict the genotypes at other SNPs that are in LD with the tag SNPs, were used to select a representative subset of SNPs in a multimarker test [11] (implemented in the FBAT package). The multimarker test was shown to have similar power with the BonferroniHolm [27] method that controls familywise error rate (FWER). A truncated product method [28] (referred to as the threshold method) was proposed to select SNPs with singleSNP pvalues less than the prespecified threshold in the set, and to test association only on the selected SNPs. A permutation or a MonteCarlo simulation approach was used to account for LD between the SNPs and to obtain the pvalue for the test. This method was more powerful than the methods that combined pvalues for all of the SNPs in the set, such as Fisher’s method for combining pvalues, and also more powerful than the method that controls FWER, such as Simes test [29]. A similar approach to the truncated product method was implemented in PLINK [30] (with the settest option), which used case–control or family genotype data in the analysis.
While the threshold method provides a powerful approach to the multiSNP analysis, a pvalue threshold needs to be specified before the analysis can be performed. In practice, the pvalue threshold is usually specified as 0.05 (the default value in PLINK), even though this threshold may not be optimal. For example, if most of the causal SNPs have pvalues less than 0.01, using a pvalue threshold of 0.01 can result in higher power than using a pvalue threshold of 0.05. The PLINK test can only use families with two parents and one affected children (triad) or families with one affected and one unaffected sib (discordant sib pair). However, general nuclear families with multiple siblings were sampled in many familybased studies [31–33] and the PLINK test could not adequately analyze these studies. Thus, a multiSNP test that uses general nuclear families is essential.
We developed the optimal pvalue threshold pedigree disequilibrium test (OPTPDT) to accommodate general nuclear families without a prespecified pvalue threshold. The OPTPDT uses a variable threshold algorithm to select SNPs with the strongest association signal. The OPTPDT method is based on the Pedigree Disequilibrium Test (PDT) [34], which can use general nuclear family structures. The method is not restricted to a single gene analysis, but can be applied to a geneset or pathway analysis. We used simulations to demonstrate that the OPTPDT test has correct type I error rates under different scenarios. Further, we compared the power for the OPTPDT test with the setbased test in PLINK, the multiSNP FBAT test, and the pvalue based test GATES [25], under different scenarios. Finally, we applied the OPTPDT to the Autism Genome Project (AGP) family GWAS dataset for genebased association analysis, and identified the MACROD2AS1 gene with genomewide significance for autism.
Methods
Pedigree disequilibrium test (PDT)
The OPTPDT was developed based on the PDT statistic. Therefore, we first review the PDT statistic. Two types of families, including the informative nuclear families and the informative discordant sibships, are considered in the PDT. At a SNP, an informative nuclear family consists of at least one triad, and each triad has one affected child as well as two genotyped parents, where one or both parents are heterozygous. An informative discordant sibship has at least one discordant sib pair (DSP), and each DSP has one affected as well as one unaffected sibling with different genotypes at the SNP. Here we consider families that contain an informative nuclear family and/or an informative discordant sibship.
Consider two alleles, A _{1} and A _{2}, at the SNP. For an affected child, there is a pair of alleles transmitted and not transmitted to the child from a parent. Define random variables \( {X}_{T_i} \) and \( {X}_{S_j} \) for a triad i and a DSP j, respectively, as:
within a nuclear family.
Let n _{ T } be the number of triads and n _{ S } be the number of DSPs in the nuclear family. Then X _{ T } and X _{ S } are defined as \( {X}_T={\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{n_T}}{X}_{T_i} \) and \( {X}_S={\displaystyle {\sum}_{j=1}^{n_S}}{X}_{S_j} \), respectively. The PDT statistic for the nuclear family was previously described by [34] and is defined as \( D=\frac{1}{n_T+{n}_S}\left({X}_T+{X}_S\right) \). If there are N nuclear families, then the PDT statistic for the SNP is defined as:
Under the null hypothesis of no linkage or no association, T ^{2} is asymptotically chisquare, with 1 degree of freedom. The statistic takes into consideration minor alleles with risk or protective effects since the statistic takes a squared value.
Optimal threshold pedigree disequilibrium test (OPTPDT)
Assume there are n SNPs in a predefined chromosomal region. The region can be defined by the biological functions, such as introns, exons, genes, or pathways. Thus, our method is not restricted to a single gene analysis, but can be applied to a geneset or pathway analysis. The null hypothesis for the test is that none of the SNPs in the region are associated with the disease. For each SNP in the region, the PDT statistic and its corresponding pvalue is calculated. We define four variable pvalue thresholds (i.e. 0.05, 0.03, 0.01, and 0.005), and SNPs with pvalues less than each of the thresholds are selected. For a pvalue threshold k, let L _{ k } be a vector containing the PDT statistics with pvalues < k. The test statistic Y _{ k } for threshold k is defined as the sum of all the PDT statistics in L _{ k }. If no PDT statistics have pvalues less than threshold k, L _{ k } is an empty set and Y _{ k } is not calculated.
Our goal is to select an optimal threshold k so that L _{ k } contains the SNPs with the most significant association signal over the four possible values of k. However, each Y _{ k } is not directly comparable because Y _{ k } has a different distribution for each k. Therefore, we standardize Y _{ k } to a Zscore, which is calculated as \( {Z}_k=\frac{Y_k{\mu}_k}{\sigma_k} \), where μ _{ k } and σ _{ k } are the mean and standard deviation for Y _{ k } under the null. We use a permutation procedure to generate the statistics under the null for Y _{ k } and estimate μ _{ k } and σ _{ k } based on the null statistics. For a permutation, we randomly permute the transmitted and nontransmitted alleles from parents to all children simultaneously for each family, and the PDT statistic for each family is calculated. We perform the permutations for m times, and each permutation j results in a permuted statistic \( {Y}_{k_j} \). Then the estimates for μ _{ k } and σ _{ k } are calculated as \( \widehat{\mu_k}={\displaystyle {\sum}_{j=1}^m}{Y}_{k_j}/m \) and \( \widehat{\sigma_k}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle {\sum}_{j=1}^m}{\left({Y}_{k_j}\widehat{\mu_k}\right)}^2/\left(m1\right)} \), respectively. The statistics Y _{ k } and \( {Y}_{k_j} \) are standardized as Z _{ k } and \( {Z}_{k_j} \), respectively, based on \( \widehat{\mu_k} \) and \( \widehat{\sigma_k} \) for each k. Finally, we define the OPTPDT statistic M as max(Z _{0.05}, Z _{0.03}, Z _{0.01}, Z _{0.005}) and for each permutation j, \( {M}_j= \max \left({Z}_{0.05_j},{Z}_{0.03_j},{Z}_{0.01_j},{Z}_{0.005_j}\right) \). The pvalue for the OPTPDT is calculated as the number of M _{ j } ≥ M divided by m.
The OPTPDT algorithm is summarized as follows.

1.
For each SNP in the region, calculate the PDT statistic, T ^{2}, and its corresponding pvalue.

2.
Assume the variable pvalue thresholds are 0.05, 0.03, 0.01, and 0.005. Select the SNPs with pvalues less than each of the thresholds. For threshold k, \( {\boldsymbol{L}}_k=\left\{{T_1}^2,{T_2}^2,\dots, {T_{n_k}}^2\right\} \), where T _{ i } ^{2} is the PDT statistic T ^{2} for SNP i with a pvalue < k, and n _{ k } is the number of SNPs in L _{ k } with pvalues < k .

3.
For each L _{ k }, calculate \( {Y}_k={\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{n_k}}{T_i}^2 \).

4.
Perform the permutation procedure for m times. For each permutation j, repeat steps 2–3, and obtain \( {Y}_{k_j} \).

5.
Standardize the statistics Y _{ k } and \( {Y}_{k_j} \) in each permutation based on the m permuted statistics, and obtain Z _{ k } and \( {Z}_{k_j} \) for each k.

6.
Select M = max (Z _{0.05}, Z _{0.03}, Z _{0.01}, Z _{0.005}). For each permutation j, select Mj = max (Z _{0.05 j} Z _{0.03 j} Z_{ 0.01 j} Z_{ 0.005 j}

7.
The pvalue is calculated as \( \frac{\mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \left({M}_j\ge M\right)}{m} \).
When the transmitted and nontransmitted alleles are permuted, the permutation simply results in a sign change in the PDT statistic. That is,
where X _{(T)} and X _{(S)} are the permuted statistics. The argument is still true when there are different numbers of affected and unaffected siblings. This property allows us to perform permutations even when parents are missing by simply permuting the sign of the PDT statistic for the family. Similarly, if we permute the transmitted and nontransmitted haplotypes at multiple SNPs, the permutations simply result in sign changes in the statistics D for all of the SNPs. Thus, we permute the signs of the PDT statistics for all SNPs simultaneously so that LD among SNPs can be maintained. These important properties of the algorithm are demonstrated in detail in Additional file 1. Also note that linkage is maintained by permuting the transmitted and nontransmitted alleles from parents to all children simultaneously in a family, as the identitybydescent (IBD) status between children is not affected by the permutation.
Simulations
We used simulation studies to evaluate the type I error and the power of the OPTPDT. Our simulation procedures occurred in two steps. In the first step, we used HAPGEN version 2 [35] to simulate haplotypes with allele frequencies and LD structures that were similar to the data collected from the European population in the HapMap Project [36]. We randomly selected 10 genes on chromosome 1 for the simulated regions. A total of 10,000 haplotypes in the 10 genes were simulated. In the second step, SeqSIMLA [37] was used to simulate nuclear families based on the 10,000 haplotypes. SeqSIMLA performed random mating and gene dropping based on the 10,000 haplotypes to generate pedigrees. We used the prevalence model in SeqSIMLA to simulate the disease status. In the prevalence model, the odds ratios for the disease loci and disease prevalence were specified. A logistic penetrance function described as follows was used to determine the affection status.
\( \mathrm{P}\left(\mathrm{Affected}\ \BigX\right) = \frac{ \exp \left(\upalpha + \boldsymbol{B}\boldsymbol{X}\right)}{1+ \exp \left(\upalpha + \boldsymbol{B}\boldsymbol{X}\right)} \), where X is a vector of genotype coding based on the additive, dominant or recessive disease model, for the n disease SNPs X _{1}, …, X _{ n }; α is used to determine the disease prevalence; B = (β _{1}, …, β _{ n }) represents the effect sizes for the disease SNPs. The disease prevalence was specified as 5 %.
We simulated different sample sizes (500 and 1000 families), family structures (nuclear family, triad, and discordant sibship), and different numbers of genes (1 and 10 genes). In a nuclear family, there were two parents and three siblings, which had one affected sibling and two unaffected siblings. A triad consisted of two parents and one affected sibling. A discordant sibship had two missing parents and one affected sibling and two unaffected siblings. There were 46 SNPs in 1 gene and 1207 SNPs in the 10 genes. For the type I error simulations, none of the SNPs in the region were associated with the disease. For the power simulations, we simulated different odds ratios (1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) for the disease SNPs, different disease models (recessive, additive, and dominant), and different numbers of disease SNPs (5 and 10). The odds ratios for all disease SNPs were assumed to be the same. The disease SNPs were randomly selected from the SNPs that were not in LD, with minor allele frequencies (MAF) > 1 %. The MAF for the 5 disease SNPs were 0.1, 0.13, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.42, while the MAF for the 10 disease SNPs were 0.04, 0.05, 0.1, 0.1, 0.13, 0.2, 0.37, 0.4, 0.42, and 0.43.
We compared the power of the OPTPDT with two other familybased multiSNP tests, PLINK and FBAT [11], and a pvalue based method, GATES [25], under different scenarios. PLINK is also a threshold method that uses a default pvalue threshold (i.e., 0.05). The FBAT uses all of the SNPs or a preselected tag SNPs in the set for a multivariate test. GATES uses an extended Simes procedure to calculate an overall pvalue for a set of pvalues obtained from singleSNP association tests. The PDT was used to calculate the singleSNP association pvalues for GATES. Because PLINK can only use triads or DSPs, we simulated triads for the power comparison. Tag SNPs, selected based on the “LD based SNP pruning” function in PLINK, in a simulated region were used for FBAT.
Real dataset analysis
We applied the OPTPDT to a GWAS dataset from the Autism Genome Project (AGP) [38–40]. The dataset containing the genotype and phenotype information was downloaded from dbGaP (accession phs000267.v4.p2). Samples in the data were recruited from North America and Europe. The dataset consisted of nuclear families collected from two stages. The stage 1 data contained about 1400 autism spectrum disorder (ASD) families genotyped on the Illumina Infinium 1 Msingle SNP array, while the stage 2 data consisted of 1301 ASD families genotyped on either the Illumina Infinium 1 Msingle or the Illumina 1 Mduo array. The combined data from both stages were used for the analysis. Strict autism as defined in the phenotype file provided by the Project was used for the phenotype in the analysis. Written informed consent for participation in the AGP study was obtained from all participants and research in the AGP study was approved by institutional review boards from all institutions involved in the AGP study [39]. The analysis in the present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan (IRB protocol # EC1020503E). The same quality control (QC) procedures as described in [38] were applied to the combined data. Families clustered with the European samples in the HapMap project based on the principal component analysis performed using the SNPRelate package [41] were extracted. After QC, our analysis dataset consisted of 1192 families with 1206 children diagnosed with strict autism and 2384 unaffected individuals and 822,668 SNPs. We downloaded the hg18 gene annotations from the UCSC genome browser website [42]. SNPs within each gene were defined as a test set. There were 17,016 genes used in the analysis, and a total of 368,584 SNPs were mapped to the genes.
Results and discussion
Type I error and power
Figure 1 shows the type I error rates under different scenarios (such as different family structures, numbers of families, and numbers of genes) at the significance levels (α) of 0.05 and 0.01. The type I error rates for the OPTPDT are close to the nominal levels, and all of the 95 % confidence intervals contain the expected levels.
We compared the power for the OPTPDT test with PLINK, FBAT and GATES under different scenarios. The default parameter setting was 500 triads, 5 disease SNPs with the odds ratios of 1.2, an additive model, and 1 gene for testing. Parameters were changed one or two at a time for each simulation scenario. Figure 2 shows the power comparison when the disease SNPs have different odds ratios of (1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) based on 500 and 1000 triads, respectively. The power for the OPTPDT is higher than PLINK, FBAT, and GATES with different odds ratios for either 500 or 1000 triads. As expected, the power for the four tests increased when the odds ratios increased for the disease SNPs. Figure 3 shows the power comparison with 5 and 10 disease SNPs. A similar power pattern was observed that the OPTPDT has the highest power compared to PLINK, FBAT, and GATES with 5 or 10 disease SNPs. The power for all the tests increased when more disease SNPs were simulated.
Figure 4 shows the power comparison in the recessive, additive, and dominant models. Again, the OPTPDT maintains the highest power under different disease models, except that GATES has slightly higher power than the OPTPDT under the recessive model at the 0.05 significance level. As seen in Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4, FBAT has the lowest power compared to the OPTPDT, PLINK, and GATES in many of the scenarios. Moreover, interestingly, GATES, a pvalue based test, is more powerful than PLINK and FBAT, which use raw genotypes, in these simulation scenarios.
Figure 5 shows the power comparison for a region that has 10 genes. A total of 10 disease SNPs were simulated with the same odds ratios of 1.2, 1.25 and 1.3. Similar to the observations for 1 gene, the OPTPDT has higher power than PLINK, FBAT, and GATES in all of the scenarios. FBAT has no power with 500 families, due to the large degrees of freedom for the multivariate test, and GATES also has relatively low power with 500 families, compared to the OPTPDT and PLINK. These results suggest that there is an advantage to selecting a promising subset of SNPs for analysis, particularly when the proportion of causal SNPs is small in the set of SNPs that are analyzed. We also randomly selected another 5 and 10 disease SNPs that were not in LD with MAF > 1 % for the power simulations, and found similar power patterns (Data not shown). Therefore, our power results represent a general power pattern for testing the joint effects of SNPs with MAF > 1 % for different methods compared in this study given the simulation settings.
AGP analysis
We applied the OPTPDT to the AGP GWAS dataset. The 10 most significant genes based on the OPTPDT pvalues are shown in Table 1. The pvalue for the most significant gene, MACRO domain containing 2 antisense RNA 1 (MACROD2AS1), passed the multiple testing threshold of 2.93 × 10^{− 6} for testing 17,016 genes. We show the association pvalues for the individual SNPs and their LD structures in MACROD2AS1 in Fig. 6. As seen in the Figure, two SNPs, rs14135 and rs1475531, in the gene show highly significant marginal pvalues of 9.33 × 10^{− 7} and 7.08 × 10^{− 7}, respectively, while other SNPs, such as rs6135305 with pvalue of 3.63 × 10^{− 3}, rs2423846 with pvalue of 4.27 × 10^{− 2}, rs1408428 with pvalue of 1.77 × 10^{− 2}, and rs6079611 with pvalue of 3.83 × 10^{− 3}, also show some marginal significance. However, none of the pvalues for the SNPs in the gene would pass the commonly used genomewide multipletesting threshold (i.e., 5 × 10^{− 8}) for individual SNP analysis. We also show the GATES, PLINK and FBAT pvalues for the 10 genes. The GATES, PLINK and FBAT test pvalues were also significant (pvalue < 0.05) for most of the 10 genes.
Discussion
PLINK requires a userspecified pvalue threshold while the OPTPDT automatically identifies an optimal threshold for selecting a subset of promising SNPs for the analysis. The OPTPDT uses four variable pvalue thresholds (i.e. 0.05, 0.03, 0.01, and 0.005) to select SNPs. More thresholds can be incorporated in the OPTPDT for the SNP selection based on the same algorithm. However, increasing the number of thresholds will increase the computational complexity in the algorithm. Further, we evaluated the power for the OPTPDT which uses ten pvalue thresholds (0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01, 0.009, 0.007, 0.005, 0.003, and 0.001) based on the default setting in the power simulations, and found that the power is similar to the power for the OPTPDT using the four thresholds (Data not shown). Therefore, when the four thresholds were used, the OPTPDT was still capable of identifying an optimal set of SNPs based on the simulations.
Although the permutation strategy of permuting the transmitted and nontransmitted alleles in families were used in other familybased association tests [43, 44], the property of the permutation procedure with the test statistic has not been explored in detail. We discussed the property of the permutation procedure in Additional file 1 in different situations, such as permutations at one SNP or multiple SNPs in LD, families with different numbers of affected and unaffected siblings, and recombination between SNPs. The general conclusion is that permuting the transmitted and nontransmitted haplotypes in a region from parents to all siblings results in simultaneous sign changes in singleSNP PDT statistics for all markers in the region. This important property can be applied to future familybased association tests incorporating permutations.
Currently, the OPTPDT uses nuclear families in the analysis. The method cannot be directly applied to the extended pedigrees, because permuting transmitted and nontransmitted alleles at a SNP in the extended pedigrees does not result in a sign change in the PDT statistic. Further, when there are missing data, permuting transmitted and nontransmitted alleles in the extended pedigrees is not straightforward. Moreover, the OPTPDT currently considers only dichotomous trait. The extended PDT which uses a quantitative trait [45] can be potentially incorporated in the OPTPDT algorithm. It is our future work to develop an efficient permutation strategy in the OPTPDT for extended pedigrees and quantitative traits.
The optimal pvalue threshold algorithm can also be applied to other association test statistics, such as the FBAT statistic, test statistics based on linear and logistic regressions from unrelated subjects, or test statistic based on mixedmodel from related subjects, as long as an appropriate permutation strategy is used. To be more specific, the singlemarker PDT statistic in Step 1 of the OPTPDT algorithm can be replaced by another test statistic for association. For unrelated subjects, the permutation procedure in Step 4 of the OPTPDT algorithm can be performed by randomly permuting the trait values among subjects. For related subjects, the correlation structures among subjects should be considered in the permutation procedure.
The OPTPDT is designed to analyze only common variants (e.g., variants with MAF > 1 %), because the algorithm uses the singleSNP pvalues for identifying an optimal subset of SNPs. Hence, the OPTPDT is suitable for analyzing GWAS data. For rare variants from sequencing studies, their singleSNP pvalues may not be informative to the SNP selection in the OPTPDT. Therefore, other familybased methods designed for rare variants, such as methods proposed in [46, 47], should be used to test a set of rare variants.
Our AGP analysis identified a significant gene, MACROD2AS1, associated with autism. Interestingly, analysis based on the stage 1 AGP data identified a genomewide significant SNP, rs4141463, in the intron region of MACROD2, which is located downstream 1 MB of MACROD2AS1 on chromosome 20, for autism. However, the role of MACROD2AS1 in the function of MACROD2 is not clear based on our literature search. As several SNPs in MACROD2AS1 show pvalues < 0.05, we performed haplotype analysis for the 16 SNPs in the gene to investigate whether there are haplotype effects in the gene on autism, using the haplotypebased transmission disequilibrium test (hapTDT) implemented in PLINK. The results are shown in Additional file 2. The haplotype analysis identified a common haplotype (GCGCCGGGAAGAGGAG) with frequency of 11 % that shows significant pvalue of 1.0 × 10^{− 3} based on the multiple testing threshold of 3.8 × 10^{− 3} for testing 13 haplotypes.
We evaluated the performance of the OPTPDT in terms of run time on a Linux server with Xeon 2.0 GHz CPUs. The OPTPDT spent averages of 5 and 7 s for the set of 46 SNPs in one simulated replicate of 500 and 1000 triads, respectively, based on 2000 permutations. The OPTPDT spent averages of 1 min and 6 s and 2 min and 46 s for the set of 1207 SNPs in one simulated replicate of 500 and 1000 triads, respectively. For the AGP analysis, the OPTPDT spent about 5 h and 44 s analyzing 1770 genes on chromosome 1. The analyses for different chromosomes can be run in parallel as the analyses are independent. Therefore, the OPTPDT can finish analyzing a large GWAS dataset in a reasonable time frame.
Conclusions
We developed the multiSNP association test, OPTPDT, using a variable pvalue threshold algorithm to select SNPs with the strongest association signal at a particular pvalue threshold. We used simulations to verify that the OPTPDT had correct type I error rates. We also used simulations to compare the power of the OPTPDT with PLINK, FBAT, and GATES. The OPTPDT had the highest power in most of the scenarios, followed by GATES, PLINK and FBAT. The simulation results showed that FBAT had the lowest power in all of the simulation scenarios. These results demonstrate that the threshold methods (i.e., OPTPDT and PLINK) are more powerful than a method using all of the SNPs without selection, particularly when only a portion of the SNPs in the set are causal.
The OPTPDT can be helpful for genebased or pathway association analysis. The method is ideal for the secondary analysis of existing GWAS datasets, which may identify a set of SNPs with joint effects on the disease. We have implemented the method into an efficient software package using C++, which can be downloaded for free from http://optpdt.sourceforge.net.
Abbreviations
 GWAS:

Genomewide association studies
 SNPs:

Single nucleotide polymorphisms
 OPTPDT:

Optimal Pvalue Threshold Pedigree Disequilibrium Test
 LD:

Linkage disequilibrium
 TDT:

Transmission disequilibrium test
 FWER:

Familywise error rate
 PDT:

Pedigree disequilibrium test
 AGP:

Autism Genome Project
 DSP:

Discordant sib pair
 IBD:

Identitybydescent
 ASD:

Autism spectrum disorder
 QC:

Quality control
 MACROD2AS1:

MACRO domain containing 2 antisense RNA 1
References
 1.
Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature. 2009;461(7265):747–53.
 2.
Han F, Pan W. Powerful multimarker association tests: unifying genomic distancebased regression and logistic regression. Genet Epidemiol. 2010;34(7):680–8.
 3.
Fan R, Knapp M. Genome association studies of complex diseases by case–control designs. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(4):850–68.
 4.
Schaid DJ, McDonnell SK, Hebbring SJ, Cunningham JM, Thibodeau SN. Nonparametric tests of association of multiple genes with human disease. Am J Hum Genet. 2005;76(5):780–93.
 5.
Deng HW, Chen WM, Recker RR. QTL fine mapping by measuring and testing for HardyWeinberg and linkage disequilibrium at a series of linked marker loci in extreme samples of populations. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66(3):1027–45.
 6.
Zaykin DV, Meng Z, Ehm MG. Contrasting linkagedisequilibrium patterns between cases and controls as a novel associationmapping method. Am J Hum Genet. 2006;78(5):737–46.
 7.
Wessel J, Schork NJ. Generalized genomic distancebased regression methodology for multilocus association analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2006;79(5):792–806.
 8.
Tzeng JY, Devlin B, Wasserman L, Roeder K. On the identification of disease mutations by the analysis of haplotype similarity and goodness of fit. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(4):891–902.
 9.
Liu Y, Li YJ, Satten GA, Allen AS, Tzeng JY. A regressionbased association test for case–control studies that uses inferred ancestral haplotype similarity. Ann Hum Genet. 2009;73(Pt 5):520–6.
 10.
Schaid DJ. Evaluating associations of haplotypes with traits. Genet Epidemiol. 2004;27(4):348–64.
 11.
Rakovski CS, Xu X, Lazarus R, Blacker D, Laird NM. A new multimarker test for familybased association studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2007;31(1):9–17.
 12.
Rabinowitz D, Laird N. A unified approach to adjusting association tests for population admixture with arbitrary pedigree structure and arbitrary missing marker information. Hum Hered. 2000;50(4):211–23.
 13.
Xu X, Rakovski C, Xu X, Laird N. An efficient familybased association test using multiple markers. Genet Epidemiol. 2006;30(7):620–6.
 14.
Yu Z, Wang S. Contrasting linkage disequilibrium as a multilocus familybased association test. Genet Epidemiol. 2011;35(6):487–98.
 15.
Spielman RS, McGinnis RE, Ewens WJ. Transmission test for linkage disequilibrium: the insulin gene region and insulindependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Am J Hum Genet. 1993;52(3):506–16.
 16.
Zhang S, Sha Q, Chen HS, Dong J, Jiang R. Transmission/disequilibrium test based on haplotype sharing for tightly linked markers. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73(3):566–79.
 17.
Yu K, Zhang S, Borecki I, Kraja A, Xiong C, Myers R, et al. A haplotype similarity based transmission/disequilibrium test under founder heterogeneity. Ann Hum Genet. 2005;69(Pt 4):455–67.
 18.
Horvath S, Xu X, Lake SL, Silverman EK, Weiss ST, Laird NM. Familybased tests for associating haplotypes with general phenotype data: application to asthma genetics. Genet Epidemiol. 2004;26(1):61–9.
 19.
Chung RH, Hauser ER, Martin ER. The APL test: extension to general nuclear families and haplotypes and examination of its robustness. Hum Hered. 2006;61(4):189–99.
 20.
Clayton D, Jones H. Transmission/disequilibrium tests for extended marker haplotypes. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;65(4):1161–9.
 21.
Wang K, Li M, Bucan M. Pathwaybased approaches for analysis of genomewide association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(6):1278–83.
 22.
Chen LS, Hutter CM, Potter JD, Liu Y, Prentice RL, Peters U, et al. Insights into colon cancer etiology via a regularized approach to gene set analysis of GWAS data. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86(6):860–71.
 23.
Park YS, Schmidt M, Martin ER, PericakVance MA, Chung RH. PathwayPDT: a flexible pathway analysis tool for nuclear families. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14:267.
 24.
Liu JZ, McRae AF, Nyholt DR, Medland SE, Wray NR, Brown KM, et al. A versatile genebased test for genomewide association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;87(1):139–45.
 25.
Li MX, Gui HS, Kwan JS, Sham PC. GATES: a rapid and powerful genebased association test using extended Simes procedure. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;88(3):283–93.
 26.
Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H. Analysing biological pathways in genomewide association studies. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(12):843–54.
 27.
Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6(2):65–70.
 28.
Zaykin DV, Zhivotovsky LA, Westfall PH, Weir BS. Truncated product method for combining Pvalues. Genet Epidemiol. 2002;22(2):170–85.
 29.
Simes RJ. An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika. 1986;73(3):751–4.
 30.
Purcell S, Neale B, ToddBrown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a tool set for wholegenome association and populationbased linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(3):559–75.
 31.
Haines JL, Hauser MA, Schmidt S, Scott WK, Olson LM, Gallins P, et al. Complement factor H variant increases the risk of agerelated macular degeneration. Science. 2005;308(5720):419–21.
 32.
Gregory SG, Schmidt S, Seth P, Oksenberg JR, Hart J, Prokop A, et al. Interleukin 7 receptor alpha chain (IL7R) shows allelic and functional association with multiple sclerosis. Nat Genet. 2007;39(9):1083–91.
 33.
Wijsman EM, Pankratz ND, Choi Y, Rothstein JH, Faber KM, Cheng R, et al. Genomewide association of familial lateonset Alzheimer’s disease replicates BIN1 and CLU and nominates CUGBP2 in interaction with APOE. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(2):e1001308.
 34.
Martin ER, Monks SA, Warren LL, Kaplan NL. A test for linkage and association in general pedigrees: the pedigree disequilibrium test. Am J Human Genet. 2000;67:146–54.
 35.
Su Z, Marchini J, Donnelly P. HAPGEN2: simulation of multiple disease SNPs. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(16):2304–5.
 36.
International HapMap C, Frazer KA, Ballinger DG, Cox DR, Hinds DA, Stuve LL, et al. A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs. Nature. 2007;449(7164):851–61.
 37.
Chung RH, Shih CC. SeqSIMLA: a sequence and phenotype simulation tool for complex disease studies. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14:199.
 38.
Anney R, Klei L, Pinto D, Regan R, Conroy J, Magalhaes TR, et al. A genomewide scan for common alleles affecting risk for autism. Hum Mol Genet. 2010;19(20):4072–82.
 39.
Autism Genome Project C, Szatmari P, Paterson AD, Zwaigenbaum L, Roberts W, Brian J, et al. Mapping autism risk loci using genetic linkage and chromosomal rearrangements. Nat Genet. 2007;39(3):319–28.
 40.
Pinto D, Pagnamenta AT, Klei L, Anney R, Merico D, Regan R, et al. Functional impact of global rare copy number variation in autism spectrum disorders. Nature. 2010;466(7304):368–72.
 41.
Zheng X, Levine D, Shen J, Gogarten SM, Laurie C, Weir BS. A highperformance computing toolset for relatedness and principal component analysis of SNP data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(24):3326–8.
 42.
Kent WJ, Sugnet CW, Furey TS, Roskin KM, Pringle TH, Zahler AM, et al. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res. 2002;12(6):996–1006.
 43.
Monks SA, Kaplan NL. Removing the sampling restrictions from familybased tests of association for a quantitativetrait locus. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66(2):576–92.
 44.
Dudbridge F. Pedigree disequilibrium tests for multilocus haplotypes. Genet Epidemiol. 2003;25(2):115–21.
 45.
Zhang S, Zhang K, Li J, Sun F, Zhao H. Test of association for quantitative traits in general pedigrees: the quantitative pedigree disequilibrium test. Genet Epidemiol. 2001;21 Suppl 1:S370–5.
 46.
IonitaLaza I, Lee S, Makarov V, Buxbaum JD, Lin X. Familybased association tests for sequence data, and comparisons with populationbased association tests. European J Human Genet EJHG. 2013;21(10):1158–62.
 47.
Chung RH, Tsai WY, Martin ER. Familybased association test using both common and rare variants and accounting for directions of effects for sequencing data. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107800.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the National Center for Highperformance Computing in Taiwan for computer time and facilities. The datasets used for the analysis described in this manuscript were obtained from dbGaP at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap through dbGaP accession number, phs000267.v4.p2. Submission of the data, phs000267.v4.p2, to dbGaP was provided by Dr. Bernie Devlin on behalf of the Autism Genome Project (AGP). Collection and submission of the data to dbGaP were supported by a grant from the Medical Research Council (G0601030) and the Wellcome Trust (075491/Z/04), Anthony P. Monaco, P.I., University of Oxford. This work was funded by grants from the National Health Research Institutes (PH103PP15) and National Science Council (NSC 1022221E400001MY2) in Taiwan.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
YTW, PYS and RHC developed the method and designed the simulation studies. YTW performed the simulation studies. YTW, PLL, and YWY performed the real data analyses. YTW and RHC wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Additional files
Additional file 1:
Permutation property for the PDT statistic.
Additional file 2:
Haplotype analysis results for MACROD2AS1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, YT., Sung, PY., Lin, PL. et al. A multiSNP association test for complex diseases incorporating an optimal Pvalue threshold algorithm in nuclear families. BMC Genomics 16, 381 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1286401516203
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Autism Spectrum Disorder
 Nuclear Family
 Transmission Disequilibrium Test
 Unaffected Sibling
 GWAS Dataset