Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Comparison of one-stage and two-stage genome-wide association studies

Shang Xue, Funda Ogut, Zachary Miller, Janu Verma, Peter Bradbury, James Holland
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/099291
Shang Xue
North Carolina State University, United States;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Funda Ogut
Artvin Coruh University, Turkey;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zachary Miller
Cornell University, United States;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janu Verma
Cornell University, United States;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Bradbury
USDA-ARS, United States;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Holland
USDA-ARS and NC State U., United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: james_holland@ncsu.edu
  • Abstract
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Linear mixed models are widely used in humans, animals, and plants to conduct genome-wide association studies (GWAS). A characteristic of experimental designs for plants is that experimental units are typically multiple-plant plots of families or lines that are replicated across environments. This structure can present computational challenges to conducting a genome scan on raw (plot-level) data. Two-stage methods have been proposed to reduce the complexity and increase the computational speed of whole-genome scans. The first stage of the analysis fits raw data to a model including environment and line effects, but no individual marker effects. The second stage involves the whole genome scan of marker tests using summary values for each line as the dependent variable. Missing data and unbalanced experimental designs can result in biased estimates of marker association effects from two-stage analyses. In this study, we developed a weighted two-stage analysis to reduce bias and improve power of GWAS while maintaining the computational efficiency of two-stage analyses. Simulation based on real marker data of a diverse panel of maize inbred lines was used to compare power and false discovery rate of the new weighted two-stage method to single-stage and other two-stage analyses and to compare different two-stage models. In the case of severely unbalanced data, only the weighted two-stage GWAS has power and false discovery rate similar to the one-stage analysis. The weighted GWAS method has been implemented in the open-source software TASSEL.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
  • Posted January 9, 2017.

Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of one-stage and two-stage genome-wide association studies
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
Share
Comparison of one-stage and two-stage genome-wide association studies
Shang Xue, Funda Ogut, Zachary Miller, Janu Verma, Peter Bradbury, James Holland
bioRxiv 099291; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/099291
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of one-stage and two-stage genome-wide association studies
Shang Xue, Funda Ogut, Zachary Miller, Janu Verma, Peter Bradbury, James Holland
bioRxiv 099291; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/099291

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Genetics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (620)
  • Biochemistry (860)
  • Bioengineering (516)
  • Bioinformatics (4762)
  • Biophysics (1503)
  • Cancer Biology (1030)
  • Cell Biology (1448)
  • Clinical Trials (52)
  • Developmental Biology (974)
  • Ecology (1633)
  • Epidemiology (808)
  • Evolutionary Biology (3691)
  • Genetics (2514)
  • Genomics (3266)
  • Immunology (602)
  • Microbiology (2416)
  • Molecular Biology (895)
  • Neuroscience (6488)
  • Paleontology (42)
  • Pathology (124)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (220)
  • Physiology (287)
  • Plant Biology (893)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (247)
  • Synthetic Biology (386)
  • Systems Biology (1323)
  • Zoology (162)