CEBP CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Cancer Health Disparities Conference 2009
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khlat, M.
Right arrow Articles by Guiguet, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khlat, M.
Right arrow Articles by Guiguet, M.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 13, 1660-1664, October 2004
© 2004 American Association for Cancer Research

Short Communication

Robustness of Case-Control Studies of Genetic Factors to Population Stratification: Magnitude of Bias and Type I Error

Myriam Khlat1,2, Marie-Hélène Cazes1, Emmanuelle Génin2 and Marguerite Guiguet2

1 Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques, Paris, France and 2 Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U535, Villejuif, France

Requests for reprints: Myriam Khlat, Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques, 133 Boulevard Davout, 75980 Paris Cedex 20, France. Phone: 33-1-56-06-21-49; Fax: 33-1-56-06-21-94. Email: Khlat{at}ined.fr


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Case-control studies of genetic factors are prone to a special form of confounding called population stratification, whenever the existence of one or more subpopulations may lead to a false association, be it positive or negative. We quantify both the bias (in terms of confounding risk ratio) and the probability of false association (type I error) in the most unfavorable situation in which only one high-risk subpopulation is hidden within the studied population, considering different scenarios of population structuring and varying sample sizes. In accord with previous work, we find that the bias is likely to be small in most cases. In addition, we show that the same applies to the associated type I error whenever the subpopulation is small in proportion. For instance, when the hidden subpopulation makes up 5% of the entire population, with an allelic frequency of 0.25 (versus 0.10) and a disease rate that is double, then the estimated bias is 1.07 and the type I error associated with a sample of 500 cases and 500 controls is 8% (instead of 5%). We also show that the type I error is substantially greater for a rare allele (frequency of 0.1) than for a common allele (frequency of 0.5) and analyze the pattern of increase of vulnerability to stratification bias with sample size. Based on our findings, we may therefore conclude that with moderate sample sizes the type I error associated with population stratification remains very limited in most realistic scenarios.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Epidemiologic studies of genetic factors and disease are sensitive to population stratification into racial or ethnic groups, as spurious associations may arise whenever one or more subpopulations carries both a different prevalence of an allele and a different risk for the disease under study. Concerns related to stratification biases have raised doubts about the credibility of reported findings and led some authors to advise routine use of related controls in case-control studies of genetic factors (1, 2). Yet, the potential impact of this type of bias on the outcome of association studies has not been thoroughly investigated and a "systematic program of research to understand the magnitude of the problem in general" has been called for (3). A recent study has provided evidence that, assuming the epidemiologic principles of study design, conduct, and analysis are rigorously applied, the stratification bias is unlikely to be substantial in case-control studies of cancer among non-Hispanic Caucasians of European origin in the United States, and called for further work on other populations (4, 5). Those conclusions have been extended to African Americans and Whites in the United States (6).

The rationale in both studies was focused on the bias in estimation, as measured by the confounding risk ratio (CRR), which is the ratio of the crude and ethnic group-adjusted relative risks for the effect of genotype on disease. The CRR reflects the magnitude of the bias attached to stratification within the wide variety of ranges of genotype frequencies and rates of diseases, and the above-mentioned studies have shown that the bias from population stratification is likely to be small except under extreme conditions. Yet, given that critics, who have argued that stratification undermines the credibility of epidemiologic studies of genetic factors, are especially concerned with spurious associations, a more meaningful measure of the impact of the bias would be the probability of false-positive findings (i.e., type I error). For a given magnitude of the bias, the type I error depends partly on the prevalence of the genotype of interest in the subpopulations and the size of the sample, and the question is: Even if there is little bias, can the probability of false-positive findings be appreciable?

In this article, we investigate the probability of artificial association between a genetic factor and a disease in relation to the characteristics of the stratification ongoing in a large population. Based on an additive model of inheritance for the disease, estimates of the CRR and the associated type I error are provided for the most unfavorable situation in which only one high-risk subpopulation is hidden within the studied population, considering different scenarios in terms of population variables (frequency of genotype of interest, disease rate ratio, and relative size of hidden subpopulation) and varying sample sizes. On the basis of our findings, we discuss the likelihood of type I error in current epidemiologic studies of genetic factors.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Let us consider a case-control study with Na cases and Nu controls sampled from a population that is divided into two subpopulations, Pop1 and Pop2. Let f be the proportion of Pop1, and let us assume that Pop1 is the subpopulation having the highest risk of disease. Let us consider a biallelic gene and let p1 and p2 be the respective frequencies of the variant allele in the two subpopulations.

We want to derive the expected genotype distribution for the marker gene in cases and controls, under the null hypothesis that this marker has no influence on the risk of disease. Provided the disease is rare enough, we may assume that the genotype distribution in controls is roughly the same as that found in the population as a whole. We can write:

(1)


Let K be the ratio of the disease rate in Pop1 to the disease rate in Pop2. The expected genotype distribution in cases may be written as:

(2)



To test the effect of the genotype on disease risk, we used a logistic regression analysis in which the genotype was incorporated as a quantitative variable coded 0 (aa), 1 (Aa), or 2 (AA) (i.e., assuming an additive model of inheritance). Under the hypothesis of no relation between genotype and disease risk, the CRR reduces to the crude relative risk for the effect of genotype on disease. The type I error of the likelihood ratio test of association between the marker and the disease was evaluated by using a noncentral {chi}2 distribution with 1 df and a noncentrality variable {lambda} (7) depending on the different variable values:

(3)

This procedure provides an asymptotic approximation of the type I error that was found to be very accurate by simulation (data not shown).

Different scenarios were considered: disease rate ratio of 2 as opposed to 10; uncommon marker allele (frequency in larger subpopulation = 0.1) as opposed to common marker allele (frequency = 0.5); and proportion of the hidden subpopulation of 1%, 5%, 10%, or 50%. For each scenario, we estimated both the CRR and the type I error. To compute type I errors, a sample size of 500 cases and 500 controls was considered but the impact of the sample size was also studied by varying it from 100 to 1,000.

All computations were done using the Stata software (version 7).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Based on a disease rate ratio of 2 and a sample of 500 cases and 500 controls, we have investigated the influence on the CRR and the type I error of (a) the allele frequency difference between the two populations, (b) the proportion of the higher-risk subpopulation, and (c) the allele frequency in the lower-risk subpopulation (rare as opposed to common; Fig. 1).



View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. CRR and type I error in case-control studies with population stratification (disease rate ratio = 2; sample size = 500 cases and 500 controls; f = proportion of the higher-risk subpopulation).

 
When the study allele is less frequent in the subpopulation with the highest prevalence of the disease (called the "higher-risk" subpopulation) than in the other one (left-hand side of the graphs), then the CRR takes values lower than 1, as if the genotype of interest had a protective role with respect to the disease (false-negative association). Conversely, when the allele is more frequent in the higher-risk subpopulation than in the other one, then the CRR is higher than 1, potentially reflecting a false-positive association. The pattern of variation of the CRR within each of the four curves indicates that (a) the further the allele frequency in the higher-risk subpopulation moves away from that in the other one, the greater the departure of the CRR value from 1 (i.e., the greater the bias), and (b) the greater the proportion of the higher-risk subpopulation, the greater the bias. Therefore, the maximum bias is obtained here with a 50% subpopulation, and in that case, for rare alleles, the CRR goes up to 1.4 when the allele frequency difference is of 0.9 (0.1 versus 1) and, for common alleles, it varies from 0.7 to 1.4 when the allele frequency difference shifts from –0.5 to 0.5. Let us consider the more realistic scenarios in which the subpopulation makes up only a small part of the study population (1%, 5%, or 10%): focusing on the bias and type I error estimates corresponding to an allelic frequency difference of ≤0.2 (see Table 1 for detailed figures), we find that in that case the bias is contained within much more reasonable limits (i.e., at most 1.15 for rare alleles and 1.07 for common alleles).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Values of type I error and CRR in selected scenarios (disease rate ratio = 2; 500 cases and 500 controls; f = proportion of the higher-risk subpopulation)

 
Looking at the relation between the CRR and the type I error, we find, as expected, that the larger the CRR value, the greater the type I error, and for the extreme scenarios providing the maximum CRR values, the type I error is 100% (i.e., certainty to falsely conclude that there is an association between the study allele and the disease). Again, in the more realistic scenarios defined above, the estimated type I errors do remain within an acceptable range for samples of 500 cases and 500 controls (Table 1): for instance, for rare alleles, we get in the extreme a type I error of 19% (with a CRR of 1.15), whenever the allele frequency difference is 0.2, and under the hypothesis of a disease rate ratio as high as 2. For common alleles, that ceiling type I error is 11% (CRR of 1.07).

The same patterns of variation are found when the disease rate in the higher-risk subpopulation is 10-fold that in the other one (data not shown), but in that case both the magnitude of the bias and the type I error are considerably expanded. Under the most extreme scenario (50% subpopulation and maximal allele frequency difference), the bias is 4 for common alleles and 3.3 for rare ones, whereas the type I error with a sample of 500 cases and 500 controls is 100%. In terms of type I error, the advantage of common alleles over rare ones is much less evident in that case, except for the smallest subpopulations (f = 1%). For f = 5% or 10%, false associations are almost certain to be found for rare alleles, starting from an allele frequency difference of 0.2.

The influence of sample size on type I error was looked at based on the scenario with a disease rate ratio of 2 and an allele frequency of 0.3 in the higher-risk subpopulation as opposed to 0.1 in the other one, corresponding to a CRR of 1.02, 1.09, 1.15, or 1.20 for values of f of 1%, 5%, 10%, or 50%, respectively (Fig. 2). Clearly, when the hidden higher-risk subpopulation is a very small portion of the larger one (1%), then the probability of false association remains close to the expected 5% for sample sizes ranging up to 1,000 cases and 1,000 controls. When the proportion of the higher-risk subpopulation is larger, the type I error increases with sample size, and the greater that proportion, the faster the increase. For a subpopulation amounting to 10% of the total, the type I error reaches 10% for samples of size of 200, whereas it takes a sample of 550 to reach that level when the proportion is 5%.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Influence of sample size on type I error in case-control studies with population stratification (disease rate ratio = 2; allele frequency = 0.1 in the lower-risk subpopulation and 0.3 in the higher-risk subpopulation; f = proportion of the higher-risk subpopulation).

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Understanding the magnitude of the bias and the role of the factors underlying population stratification is helpful for properly interpreting the findings of case-control studies of genetic factors based on a thorough knowledge of the characteristics of the underlying population structure. Recently, Wacholder et al. (4) have quantified the bias in estimation attached to population stratification based on the CRR. Given that the main concern in epidemiologic studies of genetic factors is the reliability of positive findings, we have extended the perspective by examining simultaneously the CRR and the probability of false-positive findings (type I error) attached to different population structure scenarios, knowing that, for a given amount of bias, the type I error depends on the frequency of the at-risk genotype and on the sample size.

Clearly, the 50% subpopulation case is the one that provides the maximum bias and type I error, but whether this type of population structuring is likely to be found is open to question. Furthermore, large allelic frequency differences between subpopulations are likely to occur mainly between distinguishable ethnic groups and therefore could be handled easily by matching, adjustment, or other standard methods. More subtle differences in admixed populations may be more tricky, as they are impossible to deal with analytically. Based on the International Project on Genetic Susceptibility to Environmental Carcinogens database, Garte et al. (8, 9) have found that there were major and significant differences in the frequency of the more commonly studied metabolic genes among Caucasians, Asians, Africans, and African Americans and some, but much less, within Caucasian populations from different countries. One example of the latter is the shift of the frequency of GSTT1*0 from ~0.13 in northern Europeans to ~0.17 in Caucasians from the rest of Europe (i.e., a 0.04 difference between subpopulations from different origins within Europe). With a disease prevalence in the higher-risk subpopulation as high as double that in the other subpopulation (rate ratio = 2), we show that, for the 1%, 5%, and 10% scenarios in which the allele frequencies differences do not exceed 0.2, both bias and type I errors are contained within reasonable limits.

Our findings are therefore in accord with those of Ardlie et al. (10), who suggest that "carefully matched, moderate-sized case-control samples in cosmopolitan U.S. and European populations are unlikely to contain levels of structure that would result in significantly inflated numbers of false-positive associations." In addition to that, we present original findings that clarify the separate impact of the different components of population structure and sample size: (a) the larger the difference between the study population and the hidden subpopulation in terms of either allele frequencies or disease prevalence, the larger the type I error; (b) the larger the relative size of the hidden subpopulation within the study population, the larger the type I error; and (c) the type I error is larger for uncommon alleles than for common ones: for instance, a relatively common allele like GSTM1*0 (frequency around 50%) would be much less exposed to stratification bias than a rare one like CYP1A1*2A (frequency around 5-6%).

We also illustrate the pattern of variation of type I error according to sample size, for different subpopulation scenarios, and underline the greater vulnerability of large study samples to stratification bias, in agreement with the findings of Pritchard and Donnelly (11), who argue that the extent of bias caused by population structure increases as the sample gets larger due to greater power to detect both real associations and spurious ones. Yet, even with large samples, it has to be pinpointed that the type I error only reaches appreciable levels under quite unrealistic population scenarios, given that, as discussed above, the variability to be considered in terms of disease rates and allele frequencies is the variability within ethnic groups, after accounting for known risk factors. Furthermore, we have voluntarily limited our study to a scenario comprising two subpopulations, which is the situation the most exposed to stratification bias. Wacholder et al. (4) have shown that ethnic diversity reduces the bias from population stratification: the potential for bias is greatest with two or three ethnicities and tends to decline as the number goes up, with single biases canceling each other out.

In conclusion, this study throws light on the patterns of variation of type I error in relation to the different components of population structuring and shows that both bias and type I error resulting from population stratification are likely to be limited in methodologically sound case-control studies of moderate size, except in quite unrealistic scenarios. Whenever a statistical association is likely to result from stratification, then other approaches should be used to confirm the association.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Dr. Catherine Bonaïti for very helpful comments on a first draft of the article.


   Footnotes
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 12/29/03; revised 4/30/04; accepted 5/ 6/04.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Gauderman WJ, Witte JS, Thomas DC. Family-based association studies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;26:31–7.
  2. Schaid DJ, Rowland C. Use of parents, sibs and unrelated controls for detection of associations between genetic markers and disease. Am J Hum Genet 1998;63:1492–506.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Thomas DC, Witte JS. Point: population stratification: a problem for case-control studies of candidate-gene associations? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:505–12.[Free Full Text]
  4. Wacholder S, Rothman N, Caporaso N. Population stratification in epidemiologic studies of common genetic variants and cancer: quantification of bias. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1151–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Wacholder S, Rothman N, Caporaso N. Counterpoint: bias from population stratification is not a major threat to the validity of conclusions from epidemiological studies of common polymorphisms and cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:513–20.[Free Full Text]
  6. Millikan RC. Re: Population stratification in epidemiologic studies of common genetic variants and cancer: quantification of bias. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:156.[Free Full Text]
  7. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1988.
  8. Garte S, Gaspari L, Alexandrie AK, et al. Metabolic gene polymorphism frequencies in control populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:1239–48.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Garte S. The role of ethnicity in cancer susceptibility gene polymorphisms: the example of CYP1A1. Carcinogenesis 1998;19:1329–32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Ardlie KG, Lunetta KL, Seielstad M. Testing for population subdivision and association in four case-control studies. Am J Hum Genet 2002;71:304–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Pritchard JK, Donnelly P. Case-control studies of association in structured or admixed populations. Theor Popul Biol 2001;60:227–37.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GeneticsHome page
N. A. Rosenberg and M. Nordborg
A General Population-Genetic Model for the Production by Population Structure of Spurious Genotype-Phenotype Associations in Discrete, Admixed or Spatially Distributed Populations
Genetics, July 1, 2006; 173(3): 1665 - 1678.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
T. R. Rebbeck, C. H. Halbert, and P. Sankar
Genetics, Epidemiology, and Cancer Disparities: Is it Black and White?
J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2006; 24(14): 2164 - 2169.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
Y. Wang, R. Localio, and T. R. Rebbeck
Evaluating Bias due to Population Stratification in Epidemiologic Studies of Gene-Gene or Gene-Environment Interactions
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 124 - 132.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
T. R. Rebbeck and P. Sankar
Ethnicity, Ancestry, and Race in Molecular Epidemiologic Research
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2005; 14(11): 2467 - 2471.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
R. L. Riha, P. Brander, M. Vennelle, N. McArdle, S. M. Kerr, N. H. Anderson, and N. J. Douglas
Tumour necrosis factor-{alpha} (-308) gene polymorphism in obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome
Eur. Respir. J., October 1, 2005; 26(4): 673 - 678.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
J. S. Barnholtz-Sloan, R. Chakraborty, T. A. Sellers, and A. G. Schwartz
Examining Population Stratification via Individual Ancestry Estimates versus Self-Reported Race
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2005; 14(6): 1545 - 1551.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
G. A. Heiman, P. Gorroochurn, S. E. Hodge, D. A. Greenberg, M. Khlat, and M.-H. Cazes
Robustness of Case-Control Studies to Population Stratification
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2005; 14(6): 1579 - 1582.
[Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khlat, M.
Right arrow Articles by Guiguet, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khlat, M.
Right arrow Articles by Guiguet, M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online