Volume 1 Supplement 1
Genetic Analysis Workshop 15: Gene Expression Analysis and Approaches to Detecting Multiple Functional Loci
A comparison of founderonly and allpedigreemembers genotypeexpression association by regression analysis
 Young Ju Suh^{1},
 HyeSoon Lee^{2, 3},
 Franak Batliwalla^{2} and
 Wentian Li^{2}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/175365611S1S8
© Suh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007
Published: 18 December 2007
Abstract
Genotypeexpression association analysis using linear regression may produce different test results depending on whether founders only or all pedigreed members are used. This difference is not due to the correlation of samples within a pedigree, because linear mixed models have been applied to account for that correlation. We investigated the possibility that the difference is due to a dependence of expression levels on, among other things, the generation number in the pedigree. Indeed, of the 30 or so studied expression quantitative traits, several of them show significant dependence on the generation number. We propose to use all pedigree members in genotypeexpression association analyses whenever the complete genotyping information is available.
Background
The genotypeexpression association analyses were performed by Morley et al. [1] and Cheung et al. [2] in unrelated CEPH founders only to avoid the issue of correlated samples. On the other hand, the problem of correlated samples has been dealt with using the mixed model approach in many fields [3], including animal and plant genetics [4, 5]. The mixed model with random effects accounts for the correlation by assuming a particular form of covariance structure [6]. The parameters in the mixed model are estimated by the maximum likelihood (or restricted maximum likelihood) approach with iterative algorithms. The correlation among pedigree members apparently can be handled by the mixed model. In fact, a recent paper used the genotypeexpression data in Morley et al. [1] as an example to illustrate their version of linear mixed model [7].
In linear regression models (y ~ ax+b), the x variable in different samples is allowed to be correlated as long as the y variable is independent conditional on x. Using pedigree members might be a potential problem in genotypeexpression association by regression analysis if expression levels in some pedigrees are systematically higher or lower than other pedigrees, thus the parameter b, for example, can vary from one pedigree to another in a random fashion. Note that this is a different issue from the correlated samples for allele frequency estimation in casecontrol analysis [8–10]. In allele frequency estimation, correlation among pedigree members increases the variance of the estimation, while keeping the estimator unbiased [10].
Morley et al. found 27 genes that exhibit strong cisacting genotypeexpression (or SNPeQT) association signal [2]. These signals are believed to be true positives not only because cis action makes much biological sense, but also because these genes are under linkage peaks. We used these genes in our study, but relaxed the cisacting requirement: the SNP that shows the strongest association signal will be checked for our comparative study between using founders only and using all pedigree members. This procedure usually selects transacting SNPs, and thus the chance for falsepositive SNPeQT association is higher.
A comparison of using founders and using all pedigree members might detect something else: consistency between gene expression in founders and in nonfounders. If pedigree founders are not a representative subset of samples of a pedigree, using founders only will lead to biased selection. Recent studies have shown that many eQTs may be agedependent [11], which may provide a biological basis for a possible founder bias. If an eQT is more closely associated with age than with a SNP's genotype, the genotype only partially explains the expression level. We will examine this issue here.
Methods
Selection of the SNPeQT pairs
Averaged percentile value of 28 eQTs
eQT^{a}  mean(P)^{b}  sd(P)^{c}  median(P)^{d} 

LRAP  55.4  30.61  50 
AA827892  52.57  31.16  50 
PSPHL  51.63  29.51  50 
CPN × 101  62.14  31.05  67.86 
CSTB  67.22  29.79  71.43 
RPS26  63.18  30.68  71.43 
GSTM2  51.28  30.09  50 
HLADRB2  50.1  29.14  50 
IRF5  53.35  30.85  50 
HSD17B12  46.74  29.64  42.86 
GSTM1  52.27  32.44  46.43 
PPAT  59.16  27.14  57.14 
DDX17  67.63  26.24  71.43 
CTSH  59.7  29.84  62.91 
POMZP3  56.65  31.54  57.14 
CGI96  75.87  20.58  78.57 
CHI3L2  57.42  30.25  57.14 
VAMP8  45.34  30.89  42.86 
×10IF3S8  60  28.59  64.29 
TM7SF3  64.07  29.1  66.76 
IL16  44.2  26.2  42.86 
TC × 10A1  54.61  30.17  50 
S100A13  43.97  26.06  42.86 
SMARCB1  45.37  30.15  35.71 
CTBP1  51.41  32.13  50 
ZNF85  34.72  24.54  28.57 
PTPN22  31.67  19.13  28.57 
HLADRB1  36.2  28.94  23.08 
Linear regression with mixed effects and linear regression of covariates
When all pedigree members are used (194 samples), we considered two models to account for possible pedigreespecific effects on eQT: a random effect on the intercept a (MM1 for mixed model 1):y _{ ij }= a + ε _{ i }+ bx _{ ij }+ ε _{ ij }, where i is the pedigree index and j is the person index; and random effects on both a and the slope b (MM2 for mixed model 2): y _{ ij }+ a + ε _{ i }+ (b + δ _{ i })x _{ ij }+ ε _{ ij }. As for the age effect, we simplified the issue by examining the effect of generation number (1, 2, 3) on expression level, disregarding pedigrees (labeled as "GC model" for generation as a covariate): y _{ ij }= a + bx _{ ij }+ c _{2} g _{2,ij }+ c _{3} g _{3,ij }+ ε _{ ij }. Note that the generation covariate is coded as a factor with two dummy variables, g_{2} (1 for generation 2; 0 otherwise) and g_{3} (1 for generation 3; 0 otherwise).
tTest assuming dominant or recessive model
To check the robustness of linear regression in which an additive model is assumed, we also carried out two ttests for the expression levels by either combining genotypes 0 and 1 as one group (and genotype 2 as the second group), or combining genotype 1 and 2 as a group (and genotype 0 as another group). The best pvalue of the two tests was selected.
Averaged percentile of founders
To examine whether founders tend to have higher or lower expression levels with respect to the nonfounders, we determined the percentile value for each founder in a pedigree, for a specific eQT. For that eQT, this percentile value was averaged over all pedigrees. If the averaged founder percentile was close to 50%, there was no founder selection bias; and if it was close to 100% or 0%, founders were considered as a biased subset.
Programs used
Both SAS and R statistical packages were used.
Results & discussion
Using founders only and using all pedigree members may lead to different association results
As seen in Additional file 1, a significant association for a SNPeQT pair using founders only may lose its significance when all pedigree members are used (e.g., the DDX17rs243404 pair). This observation is somewhat surprising, because there are several reasons to believe the opposite. First, extra samples in the 194sample data set are offspring of those in the 56sample data set, so if there is relatedness in their eQTs, it will only reinforce the association signal. Second, with a larger sample size in the 194sample data set, we would expect a smaller pvalue, instead of a larger, insignificant one. For the 31 SNPeQT pairs listed in Additional file 1, 25 pairs' pvalues are increased in the allpedigreemember data set (using the naive approach, assuming all samples are independent), despite a tripling of the sample size.
Checking robustness of result by ttests using dominant and recessive models
Because the linear regression used here implies an additive model, we also carry out two ttests by grouping samples with the heterozygous genotype to those with one of the homozygous genotypes. For founders, the only SNPeQT pair with pvalue smaller than 4.4 × 10^{6}(0.01/2263) is CSTBrs157334 (pvalue = 1.4 × 10^{6}). When all pedigree members are used, CSTBrs157334 is still the only pair that is significant at this level (pvalue = 1.6 × 10^{10}).
Correcting for sample relatedness by random mixed models
When the MM1 mixed model is applied to the 194sample data, only two SNPeQT pairs remain significant at the 4.4 × 10^{6} level: CSTBrs157334 and HSD17B12rs1334334. When MM2 mixed model is applied, only CSTBrs157334 exhibits a pvalue close to that level (5.3 × 10^{6}). Interestingly, this is the only cisacting pair among those listed in Additional file 1. If an eQT has stronger dependence on a SNP genotype and a lower variation from pedigree to pedigree, we expect the significant SNPeQT association to survive the application of a mixed model, at least with the random effect on the intercept. However, some SNPeQT pairs lose the test significance in both MM1 and MM2. The MM2 model describes a situation in which not only the eQT varies among pedigrees, but also its degree of dependence on SNP genotype changes with pedigrees. MM2 is a less realistic model than MM1.
Age/generation effect on eQT
To investigate why allpedigreemember data set may exhibit a different regression result from the foundersonly data set, we examined whether eQT changes from generation to generation. This is a simplified version of examining the age effect, as generation 1 (founders) are older than the second and the third generations. Under the GC regression model described in the Methods section, three pvalues are listed in Additional file 1: these are for testing zero coefficients for the genotype (b), generation 2 (c _{2}), and generation 3 (c _{3}). Note that in this regression, pedigree member information is discarded.
Five SNPeQT pairs in Additional file 1 show significant genotype association at the 4.4 × 10^{6} level after accounting for the generation effect: the two pairs mentioned above as well as RPS26rs720428, CTSHrs1021639, and GSTM1rs1039337. On the other hand, significant association with the generation variable has been observed for these eQTs: DDX17 (4.8 × 10^{15}) on generation 2; PTPN22 (2.8 × 10^{20}), CGI96 (8.4 × 10^{15}), HLADRB1 (1.7 × 10^{8}), ZNF85 (3.5 × 10^{8}), IL16 (2.2 × 10^{6}), and CSTB (6.6 × 10^{6}) on generation 3. Interestingly, even though CSTB has a significant association with generation 3, it has an even stronger association with the genotype of rs157334.
A very simple check on whether founders tend to have different expression levels from nonfounders is to calculate their percentile value with respect to other samples in the pedigree. For example, for a 14member pedigree, each member has a percentile value ranging from 1/14 to 1, in an increment of 1/14, and is determined by their expression level of a particular eQT. For 28 eQTs (the probe sets that represent the "consensus sequence" of DDX17 and HLADRB1 are selected, whereas those that are "example sequences" are discarded), their average, standard deviation, and median percentile values are listed in Table 1. It is clear that for some eQTs, founders are indeed a biased subset of the pedigree. Most of the examples mentioned above for having a significant generation dependence is regression model also show up in Additional file 1 for having higher or lower averaged founder percentiles: DDX17 (68%), PTPN22 (32%), CGI96 (76%), HLADRB1 (36%), ZNF85 (35%), and CSTB (67%).
Yet another simple check for the founder effect on expression is the twoway ANOVA with pedigree as one factor and founder/nonfounder as the second factor. Our result shows that 1) pedigreedependence of the expression is significant for most eQTs (with the exception of four to five eQTs); 2) founderdependence of expression is significant for nine eQTs at the pvalue = 0.001 level. These nine eQTs are CSTB, RPS26, DDX17, CGI96, TM7SF3, IL16, ZNF85, PTPN22, and HLADRB1, consistent with the result from the percentile value calculation; 3) for the founderpedigree interaction term, four eQTs are significant at the pvalue = 0.001 level.
Onestage versus twostage analysis
Although it does not apply to the GAW data, in a practical setting, genomewide genotyping information may only be available for the first stage of a study. In this situation, one may select SNPs that show promising association signals, and only type these SNPs for the rest of the pedigree (second stage) in order to save cost. It is also suggested by Van Steen et al. that twostage design also helps to ease the multiple testing problem [14]. If the whole genome genotyping information is available for all pedigree members, one should use all samples in the analysis, while correcting the sample correlation by appropriate procedures (such as the mixed model procedure discussed here).
To test where a twostage design would lead us, we imagine a hypothetical situation in which we do not have the genotyping information for nonfounders. Then we would first exhaustively perform all possible genotypeexpression linear regression analyses for the 56 founders. There are more than 8 millions possible SNPeQT pairs, leading to an equal number of pvalues. From these results, for each eQT, the minimum pvalues of all 2263 SNPs can be recorded. There are 47 eQTs that have a minimum pvalue lower than 4.4 × 10^{6}. Now we assume in the secondstage that these selective SNPs are typed for nonfounders. For the corresponding eQTSNP pair, another linear regression analysis on all 194 members can be carried out, as well as a linear regression analysis with the generation variable as covariates. If we do that, among these 47 eQTSNP pairs, only two remain significant at the 4.4 × 10^{6} level for the 194sample data set: CSTBrs157334 and HSD17B12rs1334334. Interestingly, these two pairs are the only overlap between the 47pair set and the 31pair set listed in Additional file 1. Furthermore, the two pairs are also the only ones showing significant association with genotype after the generation effect has been removed.
Because the eQTs listed in Table 1 of Cheung et al. [2] (and Additional file 1 here) are selected based on a larger data set and, more importantly, extra information (e.g., linkage signal), they stand at a better chance to be true positives. The fact that the only two eQTs whose significant association with a SNP survive the test using all pedigree members cautions us on the practice of not using all available data, but only relying on a subset of the data set.
Conclusion
We have shown that besides pedigree founders, pedigree members can also be used in a SNPeQT association analysis. The issue of relatedness among pedigree members can be handled by mixed models, either with one or two random effects to account for pedigreespecific expression variations. Using all pedigree members has other advantages, such as increasing the sample size, checking the consistency among samples, and detecting possible age dependence in expression levels.
List of Abbreviations
 CEPH:

Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Human
 GAW:

Genetic Analysis Workshop 15
 GC:

generation as a covariate (linear regression model)
 eQT:

expression quantitative trait
 MM:

mixed model (with 1 or 2 random effects)
 SNP:

singlenucleotide polymorphism
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We thank Yaning Yang and Peter Gregersen for discussions, Jianxin Shi and Harald Goring for discussing their results prior to publication, and Houman Khalili for reading the manuscript.
This article has been published as part of BMC Proceedings Volume 1 Supplement 1, 2007: Genetic Analysis Workshop 15: Gene Expression Analysis and Approaches to Detecting Multiple Functional Loci. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/17536561/1?issue=S1.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Morley M, Molony CM, Weber TM, Devlin JL, Ewens KG, Spielman RS, Cheung VG: Genetic analysis of genomewide variation in human gene expression. Nat Genet. 2004, 430: 743747. 10.1038/nature02797.Google Scholar
 Cheung VG, Spielman RS, Ewens KG, Weber TM, Morley M, Burdick JT: Mapping determinants of human gene expression by regional and genomewide association. Nature. 2005, 437: 13651369. 10.1038/nature04244.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pinheiro JC, Pinheiro J, Bates DM: MixedEffects Models in S and SPlus. 2002, New York: SpringerVerlagGoogle Scholar
 Kennedy BW, Quinton M, van Arendonk JA: Estimation of effects of single genes on quantitative traits. J Anim Sci. 1992, 70: 20002012.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Xu S, Yi N: Mixed model analysis of quantitative trait loci. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000, 97: 1454214547. 10.1073/pnas.250235197.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Laird NM, Ware JH: Randomeffects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics. 1982, 38: 963974. 10.2307/2529876.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Yu J, Pressoir G, Briggs WH, Bi IV, Yamasaki M, Doebley JF, McMullen MD, Gaut BS, Nielsen DM, Holland JB, Kresovich S, Buckler ES: A unified mixedmodel method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 203208. 10.1038/ng1702.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Broman KW: Estimation of allele frequencies with data on sibships. Genet Epidemiol. 2000, 20: 307315. 10.1002/gepi.2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Slager SL, Schaid DJ: Evaluation of candidate genes in casecontrol studies: a statistical method to account for related subjects. Am J Hum Genet. 2001, 68: 14571462. 10.1086/320608.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Li W, Yang Y, Remmers E, Ogunwole C, Kastner D, Gregersen P: Effective sample size: quick estimation of the effect of related samples in genetic casecontrol association analyses. Nature Precedings. 2007, [http://hdl.nature.com/10101/npre.2007.400.1]Google Scholar
 Rangrej J, Beyene J, Hu P, Paterson AD: Sex and age effects on genomewide linkage analysis of gene expression in transformed lymphoblasts. BMC Proc. 2007, 1 (Suppl 1): S92View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lee HS, Li W, Lee A, Rodine P, Graham RR, Ortman WA, Batliwalla F, Lee KW, Bae SC, Behrens TW, Gregersen PK: Microsatellite typing for DRB1 alleles: application to the analysis of HLA associations with rheumatoid arthritis. Gene Immun. 2006, 7: 533543. 10.1038/sj.gene.6364325.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gregersen PK, Lee HS, Batliwalla F, Begovich AB: PTPN22 : setting thresholds for autoimmunity. Semin Immunol. 2006, 18: 214223. 10.1016/j.smim.2006.03.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Van Steen K, McQueen MB, Herbert A, Raby B, Lyon H, Demeo DL, Murphy A, Su J, Datta S, Rosenow C, Christman M, Silverman EK, Laird NM, Weiss ST, Lange C: Genomic screening and replication using the same data set in familybased association testing. Nat Genet. 2005, 37: 683691. 10.1038/ng1582.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.