Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2013, Vol. 21 Issue (10) : 1874-1882     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01874
Research Methods |
The Comparison of Multiple Testing Corrections Methods in Genome-Wide Association Studies
HUANG Yangyue;KONG Xiangzhen;ZHEN Zonglei;LIU Jia
(State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
Download: PDF(336 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) can reveal the genetic basis of the behavior. However, the association analysis embodies a massive multiple testing problem, where millions of SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) are tested. It is vital to reduce the risk of false positive in multiple testing with an appropriate corrections method. Firstly, Family-Wise Error Rate (FWER) and False Discovery Rate (FDR), the two standard measures of Type I errors in multiple testing were introduced. Secondly, three FWER (i.e., Bonferroni, Holm Step–Down and Permutation) and one FDR (i.e., BH) multiple testing corrections method were discussed from the concept to implementation. Finally, a method to simulate GWAS data was proposed, and the four multiple testing corrections methods were evaluated on the simulated GWAS data. Results showed that SNPs reported without multiple testing corrections had both the highest average hit and the average false alarm. FWER methods reported fewer false alarms, but their average hits were also fewer than that from uncorrected or BH method. In contrast, BH method did well in balance between the false alarm and hit. Furthermore, a comprehensive index, called explained rate, was introduced to evaluate the different methods quantitatively. Results showed BH method had the highest explained rate. In the future GWAS study, researchers would better do multiple testing corrections with BH method.
Keywords Genome-Wide Association Studies      multiple testing corrections      FWER      FDR      simulation     
Corresponding Authors: ZHEN Zonglei   
Issue Date: 15 October 2013
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
HUANG Yangyue
KONG Xiangzhen
ZHEN Zonglei
Cite this article:   
HUANG Yangyue,KONG Xiangzhen,ZHEN Zonglei, et al. The Comparison of Multiple Testing Corrections Methods in Genome-Wide Association Studies[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(10): 1874-1882.
URL:     OR
[1] XU Fuming; LI Ou; DENG Ying; LI Yan; SHI Yanwei. The projection bias in judgment and decision-making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(3): 422-430.
[2] YIN Rong;QU Fang-Bing;YE Hao-Sheng. Research on Embodied Theories of Conceptual Representation[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2012, 20(9): 1372-1381.
[3] QU Fang-Bing;Yin Rong;Zhong Yuan;YE Hao-Sheng. Motor Perception in Language Comprehension: Perspective from Embodied Cognition[J]. , 2012, 20(6): 834-842.
[4] FAN Hui-Yong;LIU Dong-Zhi;MA Yu-Hui;YIN Lang. A Three-stage Integrative Model of Meta-analysis of Factor Analyses[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2012, 20(10): 1538-1545.
[5] LIU Ya;WANG Zhen-Hong;KONG Feng. The View of Embodied Emotion: A New Perspective on Emotion Study[J]. , 2011, 19(1): 50-59.
[6] LIU Cong-Hui;ZHANG Yao-Hua;YU Guo-Liang. Affective Forecasting Biases and Related Studies[J]. , 2010, 18(08): 1246-1255.
[7] Li Ying;Mo Lei;Leng Ying;Wang Ruiming. The Dynamic Text Comprehension View
and Application of Computer Simulation
[J]. , 2008, 16(02): 200-206.
[8] Wu Limei;Mo Lei;Wang Renming. Dynamic Mental Simulations during Comprehension of Motion Descriptions[J]. , 2007, 15(04): 605-612.
[9] Sun Xiang, Chen Yiwen. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research[J]. , 2005, 13(01): 97-106.
Full text



Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech