69
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Size matters: just how big is BIG? : Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Despite earlier doubts, a string of recent successes indicates that if sample sizes are large enough, it is possible—both in theory and in practice—to identify and replicate genetic associations with common complex diseases. But human genome epidemiology is expensive and, from a strategic perspective, it is still unclear what ‘ large enough’ really means. This question has critical implications for governments, funding agencies, bioscientists and the tax-paying public. Difficult strategic decisions with imposing price tags and important opportunity costs must be taken.

          Methods Conventional power calculations for case–control studies disregard many basic elements of analytic complexity—e.g. errors in clinical assessment, and the impact of unmeasured aetiological determinants—and can seriously underestimate true sample size requirements. This article describes, and applies, a rigorous simulation-based approach to power calculation that deals more comprehensively with analytic complexity and has been implemented on the web as ESPRESSO: (www.p3gobservatory.org/powercalculator.htm).

          Results Using this approach, the article explores the realistic power profile of stand-alone and nested case–control studies in a variety of settings and provides a robust quantitative foundation for determining the required sample size both of individual biobanks and of large disease-based consortia. Despite universal acknowledgment of the importance of large sample sizes, our results suggest that contemporary initiatives are still, at best, at the lower end of the range of desirable sample size. Insufficient power remains particularly problematic for studies exploring gene–gene or gene–environment interactions.

          Discussion Sample size calculation must be both accurate and realistic, and we must continue to strengthen national and international cooperation in the design, conduct, harmonization and integration of studies in human genome epidemiology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?

          Associations between modifiable exposures and disease seen in observational epidemiology are sometimes confounded and thus misleading, despite our best efforts to improve the design and analysis of studies. Mendelian randomization-the random assortment of genes from parents to offspring that occurs during gamete formation and conception-provides one method for assessing the causal nature of some environmental exposures. The association between a disease and a polymorphism that mimics the biological link between a proposed exposure and disease is not generally susceptible to the reverse causation or confounding that may distort interpretations of conventional observational studies. Several examples where the phenotypic effects of polymorphisms are well documented provide encouraging evidence of the explanatory power of Mendelian randomization and are described. The limitations of the approach include confounding by polymorphisms in linkage disequilibrium with the polymorphism under study, that polymorphisms may have several phenotypic effects associated with disease, the lack of suitable polymorphisms for studying modifiable exposures of interest, and canalization-the buffering of the effects of genetic variation during development. Nevertheless, Mendelian randomization provides new opportunities to test causality and demonstrates how investment in the human genome project may contribute to understanding and preventing the adverse effects on human health of modifiable exposures.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Genomewide association analysis of coronary artery disease.

            Modern genotyping platforms permit a systematic search for inherited components of complex diseases. We performed a joint analysis of two genomewide association studies of coronary artery disease. We first identified chromosomal loci that were strongly associated with coronary artery disease in the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) study (which involved 1926 case subjects with coronary artery disease and 2938 controls) and looked for replication in the German MI [Myocardial Infarction] Family Study (which involved 875 case subjects with myocardial infarction and 1644 controls). Data on other single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were significantly associated with coronary artery disease in either study (P 80%) of a true association: chromosomes 1p13.3 (rs599839), 1q41 (rs17465637), 10q11.21 (rs501120), and 15q22.33 (rs17228212). We identified several genetic loci that, individually and in aggregate, substantially affect the risk of development of coronary artery disease. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Robust associations of four new chromosome regions from genome-wide analyses of type 1 diabetes.

              The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) primary genome-wide association (GWA) scan on seven diseases, including the multifactorial autoimmune disease type 1 diabetes (T1D), shows associations at P < 5 x 10(-7) between T1D and six chromosome regions: 12q24, 12q13, 16p13, 18p11, 12p13 and 4q27. Here, we attempted to validate these and six other top findings in 4,000 individuals with T1D, 5,000 controls and 2,997 family trios independent of the WTCCC study. We confirmed unequivocally the associations of 12q24, 12q13, 16p13 and 18p11 (P(follow-up)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Epidemiol
                ije
                intjepid
                International Journal of Epidemiology
                Oxford University Press
                0300-5771
                1464-3685
                February 2009
                1 August 2008
                1 August 2008
                : 38
                : 1
                : 263-273
                Affiliations
                1 Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
                2 Department of Genetics, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
                3 Public Population Project in Genomics (P 3G), University of Montreal, Canada.
                4 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK.
                5 Dépt de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
                6 National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, US.
                7 National Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA.
                8 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottowa, Ottowa, Canada.
                Author notes
                * Corresponding author. Professor of Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Adrian Building, Room 217, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK. E-mail: pb51@ 123456le.ac.uk

                The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors.

                Article
                dyn147
                10.1093/ije/dyn147
                2639365
                18676414
                816ae735-41f2-4e72-8b05-f58bfe3dbe75
                Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2008; all rights reserved.

                The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

                History
                : 8 June 2008
                Categories
                Theory and Methods

                Public health
                biobank,reliability,measurement error,sample size,human genome epidemiology,aetiological heterogeneity,statistical power,simulation studies

                Comments

                Comment on this article