Statistical tests on rare variant data may well have type I error rates that differ from their nominal levels. Here, we use the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 data to estimate type I error rates and powers of three models for identifying rare variants associated with a phenotype: (1) by using the number of minor alleles, age, and smoking status as predictor variables; (2) by using the number of minor alleles, age, smoking status, and the identity of the population of the subject as predictor variables; and (3) by using the number of minor alleles, age, smoking status, and ancestry adjustment using 10 principal component scores. We studied both quantitative phenotype and a dichotomized phenotype. The model with principal component adjustment has type I error rates that are closer to the nominal level of significance of 0.05 for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in noncausal genes for the selected phenotype than the model directly adjusting for population. The principal component adjustment model type I error rates are also closer to the nominal level of 0.05 for noncausal SNPs located in causal genes for the phenotype. The power for causal SNPs with the principal component adjustment model is comparable to the power of the other methods. The power using the underlying quantitative phenotype is greater than the power using the dichotomized phenotype.

Background

To account for population stratification in association studies, principal-components analysis is often performed on single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome. Here, we use Framingham Heart Study (FHS) Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 data to compare the performance of local ancestry adjustment for population stratification based on principal components (PCs) estimated from SNPs in a local chromosomal region with global ancestry adjustment based on PCs estimated from genome-wide SNPs.

Methods

Standardized height residuals from unrelated adults from the FHS Offspring Cohort were averaged from longitudinal data. PCs of SNP genotype data were calculated to represent individual's ancestry either 1) globally using all SNPs across the genome or 2) locally using SNPs in adjacent 20-Mbp regions within each chromosome. We assessed the extent to which there were differences in association studies of height depending on whether PCs for global, local, or both global and local ancestry were included as covariates.

Results

The correlations between local and global PCs were low (r < 0.12), suggesting variability between local and global ancestry estimates. Genome-wide association tests without any ancestry adjustment demonstrated an inflated type I error rate that decreased with adjustment for local ancestry, global ancestry, or both. A known spurious association was replicated for SNPs within the lactase gene, and this false-positive association was abolished by adjustment with local or global ancestry PCs.

Conclusion

Population stratification is a potential source of bias in this seemingly homogenous FHS population. However, local and global PCs derived from SNPs appear to provide adequate information about ancestry.