Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 155–167 | Cite as

A Brief Critique of the TATES Procedure

  • Fazil AlievEmail author
  • Jessica E. SalvatoreEmail author
  • Arpana Agrawal
  • Laura Almasy
  • Grace Chan
  • Howard J. Edenberg
  • Victor Hesselbrock
  • Samuel Kuperman
  • Jacquelyn Meyers
  • Danielle M. Dick
Original Research
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

The Trait-based test that uses the Extended Simes procedure (TATES) was developed as a method for conducting multivariate GWAS for correlated phenotypes whose underlying genetic architecture is complex. In this paper, we provide a brief methodological critique of the TATES method using simulated examples and a mathematical proof. Our simulated examples using correlated phenotypes show that the Type I error rate is higher than expected, and that more TATES p values fall outside of the confidence interval relative to expectation. Thus the method may result in systematic inflation when used with correlated phenotypes. In a mathematical proof we further demonstrate that the distribution of TATES p values deviates from expectation in a manner indicative of inflation. Our findings indicate the need for caution when using TATES for multivariate GWAS of correlated phenotypes.

Keywords

Multivariate GWAS Complex traits TATES 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by funding for The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism, NIH Grant U10AA008401. This work was also supported by F32AA022269 and K01AA024152 (Salvatore); TUBITAK, Turkey, Grant #114C117 (Aliev); K02AA018755 (Dick); and DA32573 (Agrawal). This publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the funders.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Fazil Aliev, Jessica E. Salvatore, Arpana Agrawal, Laura Almasy, Grace Chan, Howard J. Edenberg, Victor Hesselbrock, Samuel Kuperman, Jacquelyn Meyers and Danielle M. Dick declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bland M (2013) Do baseline P-values follow a uniform distribution in randomised trials? PLoS ONE 8(10):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Galesloot TE, van Steen K, Kiemeney LA, Janss LL, Vermeulen SH (2014) A comparison of multivariate genome-wide association methods. PLoS ONE 9(4):e95923CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Li MX, Gui HS, Kwan JS, Sham PC (2011) GATES: a rapid and powerful gene-based association test using extended Simes procedure. Am J Hum Genet 88:283–293CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Murdoch DJ, Tsai Y-L, Adcock J (2008) P-values are random variables. Am Stat 62(3):242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. R Development Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  6. Simes RJ (1986) An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 73:751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. van der Sluis S, Posthuma D, Dolan CV (2013) TATES: efficient multivariate genotype–phenotype analysis for genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 9(1):1–9Google Scholar
  8. Yang JJ, Li J, Williams LK, Buu A (2016) An efficient genome-wide association test for multivariate phenotypes based on the Fisher combination function. BMC Bioinformatics 17(1):19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Department of Actuarial and Risk ManagementKarabuk UniversityKarabukTurkey
  3. 3.Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral GeneticsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  5. 5.Department of GeneticsTexas Biomedical Research InstituteSan AntonioUSA
  6. 6.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Connecticut Health CenterFarmingtonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  8. 8.Division of Child PsychiatryUniversity of Iowa HospitalsIowa CityUSA
  9. 9.Department of PsychiatryState University of New York Downstate Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  10. 10.Department of Human & Molecular GeneticsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations