The cost effectiveness of duplicate genotyping for testing genetic association.

We consider a modification to the traditional genome wide association (GWA) study design: duplicate genotyping. Duplicate genotyping (re-genotyping some of the samples) has long been suggested for quality control reasons; however, it has not been evaluated for its statistical cost-effectiveness. We demonstrate that when genotyping error rates are at least m%, duplicate genotyping provides a cost-effective (more statistical power for the same price) design alternative when relative genotype to phenotype/sample acquisition costs are no more than m%. In addition to cost and error rate, duplicate genotyping is most cost-effective for SNPs with low minor allele frequency. In general, relative genotype to phenotype/sample acquisition costs will be low when following up a limited number of SNPs in the second stage of a two-stage GWA study design, and, thus, duplicate genotyping may be useful in these situations. In cases where many SNPs are being followed up at the second stage, duplicate genotyping only low-quality SNPs with low minor allele frequency may be cost-effective. We also find that in almost all cases where duplicate genotyping is cost-effective, the most cost-effective design strategy involves duplicate genotyping all samples. Free software is provided which evaluates the cost-effectiveness of duplicate genotyping based on user inputs.

Gene set analyses for interpreting microarray experiments on prokaryotic organisms.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread usage of DNA microarrays, questions remain about how best to interpret the wealth of gene-by-gene transcriptional levels that they measure. Recently, methods have been proposed which use biologically defined sets of genes in interpretation, instead of examining results gene-by-gene. Despite a serious limitation, a method based on Fisher's exact test remains one of the few plausible options for gene set analysis when an experiment has few replicates, as is typically the case for prokaryotes. RESULTS: We extend five methods of gene set analysis from use on experiments with multiple replicates, for use on experiments with few replicates. We then use simulated and real data to compare these methods with each other and with the Fisher's exact test (FET) method. As a result of the simulation we find that a method named MAXMEAN-NR, maintains the nominal rate of false positive findings (type I error rate) while offering good statistical power and robustness to a variety of gene set distributions for set sizes of at least 10. Other methods (ABSSUM-NR or SUM-NR) are shown to be powerful for set sizes less than 10. Analysis of three sets of experimental data shows similar results. Furthermore, the MAXMEAN-NR method is shown to be able to detect biologically relevant sets as significant, when other methods (including FET) cannot. We also find that the popular GSEA-NR method performs poorly when compared to MAXMEAN-NR. CONCLUSION: MAXMEAN-NR is a method of gene set analysis for experiments with few replicates, as is common for prokaryotes. Results of simulation and real data analysis suggest that the MAXMEAN-NR method offers increased robustness and biological relevance of findings as compared to FET and other methods, while maintaining the nominal type I error rate.