Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) offer an exciting and promising new research avenue for finding genes for complex diseases. Traditional case-control and cohort studies offer many advantages for such designs. Family-based association designs have long been attractive for their robustness properties, but robustness can mean a loss of power. In this paper we discuss some of the special features of family designs and their relevance in the era of GWAS.

Genetic investigations often involve the testing of vast numbers of related hypotheses simultaneously. To control the overall error rate, a substantial penalty is required, making it difficult to detect signals of moderate strength. To improve the power in this setting, a number of authors have considered using weighted p-values, with the motivation often based upon the scientific plausibility of the hypotheses. We review this literature, derive optimal weights and show that the power is remarkably robust to misspecification of these weights. We consider two methods for choosing weights in practice. The first, external weighting, is based on prior information. The second, estimated weighting, uses the data to choose weights.

Because of the high cost of commercial genotyping chip technologies, many investigations have used a two-stage design for genome-wide association studies, using part of the sample for an initial discovery of “promising” SNPs at a less stringent significance level and the remainder in a joint analysis of just these SNPs using custom genotyping. Typical cost savings of about 50% are possible with this design to obtain comparable levels of overall type I error and power by using about half the sample for stage I and carrying about 0.1% of SNPs forward to the second stage, the optimal design depending primarily upon the ratio of costs per genotype for stages I and II. However, with the rapidly declining costs of the commercial panels, the generally low observed ORs of current studies, and many studies aiming to test multiple hypotheses and multiple endpoints, many investigators are abandoning the two-stage design in favor of simply genotyping all available subjects using a standard high-density panel. Concern is sometimes raised about the absence of a “replication” panel in this approach, as required by some high-profile journals, but it must be appreciated that the two-stage design is not a discovery/replication design but simply a more efficient design for discovery using a joint analysis of the data from both stages. Once a subset of highly-significant associations has been discovered, a truly independent “exact replication” study is needed in a similar population of the same promising SNPs using similar methods. This can then be followed by (1) “generalizability” studies to assess the full scope of replicated associations across different races, different endpoints, different interactions, etc.; (2) fine-mapping or resequencing to try to identify the causal variant; and (3) experimental studies of the biological function of these genes. Multistage sampling designs may be more useful at this stage, say, for selecting subsets of subjects for deep resequencing of regions identified in the GWAS.

The standard paradigm for the analysis of genome-wide association studies involves carrying out association tests at both typed and imputed SNPs. These methods will not be optimal for detecting the signal of association at SNPs that are not currently known or in regions where allelic heterogeneity occurs. We propose a novel association test, complementary to the SNP-based approaches, that attempts to extract further signals of association by explicitly modeling and estimating both unknown SNPs and allelic heterogeneity at a locus. At each site we estimate the genealogy of the case-control sample by taking advantage of the HapMap haplotypes across the genome. Allelic heterogeneity is modeled by allowing more than one mutation on the branches of the genealogy. Our use of Bayesian methods allows us to assess directly the evidence for a causative SNP not well correlated with known SNPs and for allelic heterogeneity at each locus. Using simulated data and real data from the WTCCC project, we show that our method (i) produces a significant boost in signal and accurately identifies the form of the allelic heterogeneity in regions where it is known to exist, (ii) can suggest new signals that are not found by testing typed or imputed SNPs and (iii) can provide more accurate estimates of effect sizes in regions of association.

We review the problem of confounding in genetic association studies, which arises principally because of population structure and cryptic relatedness. Many treatments of the problem consider only a simple “island” model of population structure. We take a broader approach, which views population structure and cryptic relatedness as different aspects of a single confounder: the unobserved pedigree defining the (often distant) relationships among the study subjects. Kinship is therefore a central concept, and we review methods of defining and estimating kinship coefficients, both pedigree-based and marker-based. In this unified framework we review solutions to the problem of population structure, including family-based study designs, genomic control, structured association, regression control, principal components adjustment and linear mixed models. The last solution makes the most explicit use of the kinships among the study subjects, and has an established role in the analysis of animal and plant breeding studies. Recent computational developments mean that analyses of human genetic association data are beginning to benefit from its powerful tests for association, which protect against population structure and cryptic kinship, as well as intermediate levels of confounding by the pedigree.

Genome-wide association studies, in which as many as a million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) are measured on several thousand samples, are quickly becoming a common type of study for identifying genetic factors associated with many phenotypes. There is a strong assumption that interactions between SNPs or genes and interactions between genes and environmental factors substantially contribute to the genetic risk of a disease. Identification of such interactions could potentially lead to increased understanding about disease mechanisms; drug × gene interactions could have profound applications for personalized medicine; strong interaction effects could be beneficial for risk prediction models. In this paper we provide an overview of different approaches to model interactions, emphasizing approaches that make specific use of the structure of genetic data, and those that make specific modeling assumptions that may (or may not) be reasonable to make. We conclude that to identify interactions it is often necessary to do some selection of SNPs, for example, based on prior hypothesis or marginal significance, but that to identify SNPs that are marginally associated with a disease it may also be useful to consider larger numbers of interactions.

Although prospective logistic regression is the standard method of analysis for case-control data, it has been recently noted that in genetic epidemiologic studies one can use the “retrospective” likelihood to gain major power by incorporating various population genetics model assumptions such as Hardy–Weinberg-Equilibrium (HWE), gene–gene and gene–environment independence. In this article we review these modern methods and contrast them with the more classical approaches through two types of applications (i) association tests for typed and untyped single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and (ii) estimation of haplotype effects and haplotype–environment interactions in the presence of haplotype-phase ambiguity. We provide novel insights to existing methods by construction of various score-tests and pseudo-likelihoods. In addition, we describe a novel two-stage method for analysis of untyped SNPs that can use any flexible external algorithm for genotype imputation followed by a powerful association test based on the retrospective likelihood. We illustrate applications of the methods using simulated and real data.

Under complete linkage disequilibrium (LD), robust tests often have greater power than Pearson’s chi-square test and trend tests for the analysis of case-control genetic association studies. Robust statistics have been used in candidate-gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) when the genetic model is unknown. We consider here a more general incomplete LD model, and examine the impact of penetrances at the marker locus when the genetic models are defined at the disease locus. Robust statistics are then reviewed and their efficiency and robustness are compared through simulations in GWAS of 300,000 markers under the incomplete LD model. Applications of several robust tests to the Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium [Nature 447 (2007) 661–678] are presented.

In genome-wide association studies (GWAS), hundreds of thousands of genetic markers (SNPs) are tested for association with a trait or phenotype. Reported effects tend to be larger in magnitude than the true effects of these markers, the so-called “winner’s curse.” We argue that the classical definition of unbiasedness is not useful in this context and propose to use a different definition of unbiasedness that is a property of the estimator we advocate. We suggest an integrated approach to the estimation of the SNP effects and to the prediction of trait values, treating SNP effects as random instead of fixed effects. Statistical methods traditionally used in the prediction of trait values in the genetics of livestock, which predates the availability of SNP data, can be applied to analysis of GWAS, giving better estimates of the SNP effects and predictions of phenotypic and genetic values in individuals.

Copy number variants (CNVs) account for more polymorphic base pairs in the human genome than do single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). CNVs encompass genes as well as noncoding DNA, making these polymorphisms good candidates for functional variation. Consequently, most modern genome-wide association studies test CNVs along with SNPs, after inferring copy number status from the data generated by high-throughput genotyping platforms.

Here we give an overview of CNV genomics in humans, highlighting patterns that inform methods for identifying CNVs. We describe how genotyping signals are used to identify CNVs and provide an overview of existing statistical models and methods used to infer location and carrier status from such data, especially the most commonly used methods exploring hybridization intensity. We compare the power of such methods with the alternative method of using tag SNPs to identify CNV carriers. As such methods are only powerful when applied to common CNVs, we describe two alternative approaches that can be informative for identifying rare CNVs contributing to disease risk. We focus particularly on methods identifying de novo CNVs and show that such methods can be more powerful than case-control designs. Finally we present some recommendations for identifying CNVs contributing to common complex disorders.

Combining data from several case-control genome-wide association (GWA) studies can yield greater efficiency for detecting associations of disease with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) than separate analyses of the component studies. We compared several procedures to combine GWA study data both in terms of the power to detect a disease-associated SNP while controlling the genome-wide significance level, and in terms of the detection probability (DP). The DP is the probability that a particular disease-associated SNP will be among the T most promising SNPs selected on the basis of low p-values. We studied both fixed effects and random effects models in which associations varied across studies. In settings of practical relevance, meta-analytic approaches that focus on a single degree of freedom had higher power and DP than global tests such as summing chi-square test-statistics across studies, Fisher’s combination of p-values, and forming a combined list of the best SNPs from within each study.

Replication helps ensure that a genotype-phenotype association observed in a genome-wide association (GWA) study represents a credible association and is not a chance finding or an artifact due to uncontrolled biases. We discuss prerequisites for exact replication, issues of heterogeneity, advantages and disadvantages of different methods of data synthesis across multiple studies, frequentist vs. Bayesian inferences for replication, and challenges that arise from multi-team collaborations. While consistent replication can greatly improve the credibility of a genotype-phenotype association, it may not eliminate spurious associations due to biases shared by many studies. Conversely, lack of replication in well-powered follow-up studies usually invalidates the initially proposed association, although occasionally it may point to differences in linkage disequilibrium or effect modifiers across studies.