Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
2008 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.505 HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP 
    advanced
CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION


Published ahead of print on December 3, 2009
J Am Soc Nephrol 21: 113-123, 2010
© 2010 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2009060624
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2009060624v1
21/1/113    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cordell, H. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cordell, H. J.

BASIC RESEARCH

Whole-Genome Linkage and Association Scan in Primary, Nonsyndromic Vesicoureteric Reflux

Heather J. Cordell*, Rebecca Darlay*, Pimphen Charoen{dagger},{ddagger}, Aisling Stewart*, Ambrose M. Gullett§, Heather J. Lambert||, Sue Malcolm§, Sally A. Feather, Timothy H.J. Goodship*, Adrian S. Woolf§, Rajko B. Kenda**, Judith A. Goodship* and for the UK VUR Study Group

*Institute of Human Genetics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom;
{dagger}Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom;
{ddagger}Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand;
§UCL Institute of Child Health, University College, London, United Kingdom;
||Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom;
St. James' University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; and
**Department of Pediatric Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Correspondence: Dr. Judith A. Goodship, Institute of Human Genetics, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Central Parkway, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 3BZ, UK. Phone: +44-0-191-241-8747; Fax: +44-0-191-241-8666; E-mail: j.a.goodship{at}ncl.ac.uk

Received for publication June 17, 2009. Accepted for publication September 24, 2009.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Concise methods
 Disclosures
 References
 
Primary vesicoureteric reflux accounts for approximately 10% of kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplantation, and sibling studies suggest a large genetic component. Here, we report a whole-genome linkage and association scan in primary, nonsyndromic vesicoureteric reflux and reflux nephropathy. We used linkage and family-based association approaches to analyze 320 white families (661 affected individuals, generally from families with two affected siblings) from two populations (United Kingdom and Slovenian). We found modest evidence of linkage but no clear overlap with previous studies. We tested for but did not detect association with six candidate genes (AGTR2, HNF1B, PAX2, RET, ROBO2, and UPK3A). Family-based analysis detected associations with one single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the UK families, with three SNPs in the Slovenian families, and with three SNPs in the combined families. A case-control analysis detected associations with three additional SNPs. The results of this study, which is the largest to date investigating the genetics of reflux, suggest that major loci may not exist for this common renal tract malformation within European populations.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Results
 Discussion
 Concise methods
 Disclosures
 References
 
Vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) is abnormal movement of urine from the bladder retrogradely through the vesicoureteric junctions into the upper urinary tract. This is a study of primary VUR, i.e., VUR that is not secondary to bladder outflow obstruction caused by neurogenic damage or urethral valves or part of a multiorgan syndrome. VUR is usually a benign condition but can be associated with transient kidney damage, acute inflammation from ascending pyelonephritis, or permanent damage as a consequence of scarring after infection and/or congenital kidney defects histologically comprising renal hypoplasia (too few nephrons) and/or renal dysplasia (incomplete differentiation).1–3 These renal defects are grouped under the term reflux nephropathy (RN). In the United Kingdom, RN accounts for 12% of the approximately 40,000 adults and 7% of the 768 children who require renal transplantation and/or life-long dialysis.4

Traditionally, the diagnosis of VUR has been based on cystography with radiodense or radioisotopic materials to visualize retrograde passage of urine. Williams et al.3 reviewed 15 cystography studies in well children: The largest study reported no VUR in 722 children, whereas some of the smaller studies reported much higher percentages of affected individuals. The true prevalence of (primary) VUR in children remains uncertain: 1% is probably conservative, and 10 to 20% is possible.3 Screening studies of first-degree relatives of individuals with VUR identifies reflux in one third to one half of siblings5,6 and 65% of offspring.7 Futhermore, there is a high concordance of primary VUR in identical twins,8 and families have been identified with multiple generations affected by primary VUR and RN.9 Collectively, these studies suggest that there is a substantial genetic component to VUR.

The first genome-wide linkage analysis for VUR, based on seven kindreds,9 provided preliminary evidence for a locus on chromosome 1 and also for genetic heterogeneity. In this study, multipoint parametric and nonparametric linkage analysis was undertaken; however, one of the markers defining the interval on chromosome 1, GATA176C01, was subsequently found to be on chromosome 2 (Ensembl release 55, July 2009), so this localization should be treated with caution. Subsequent studies using similar kindreds10–12 have supported the notion that the condition is genetically heterogeneous. In the largest linkage study of VUR before this report, Kelly et al.13 performed a linkage genome scan of 609 individuals (283 affected individuals in 129 families) and detected six to seven regions with suggestive evidence of linkage,14 one of which at chromosome 2q37 attained genome-wide significance when analyzed in a phenotypically derived subset of the data. The high incidence in offspring of affected individuals and the large number of pedigrees consistent with autosomal dominant inheritance, albeit with reduced penetrance, is in keeping with a dominant model; however, recently, a locus was identified on 12p11-q13 using a recessive model.15

Here we report on linkage and association analysis in affected sibling pairs from two populations. We used the Affymetrix NspI array to generate genome-wide data, adding in haplotype-tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to obtain full coverage for six candidate genes: AGTR2, HNF1B, PAX2, RET, ROBO2, and UPK3A.16


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
Discussion
 Concise methods
 Disclosures
 References
 
Linkage Analysis
Disease status was initially coded as positive for cases with VUR and/or RN. Supplemental Figures 1 through 4 show the nonparametric linkage analysis results and information content across the genome for the UK (348 cases in 172 families), Slovenian (313 cases in 148 families), and combined (661 cases in 320 families) samples, respectively. Table 1 shows all results reaching a significance threshold of equivalent logarithm of odds (LOD) score >1.17 The linkage analysis was repeated for the UK and combined data coding disease status as positive only when there was documented VUR (302 UK cases), that is, excluding cases that had RN without documented VUR (for the Slovenian data set, positive disease status for the original 313 cases already corresponded solely to VUR). The linkage results were very similar to those found using the wider phenotype definition (data not shown); however, the peaks on chromosome 6 in the UK data set and on chromosomes 10 and 11 in the combined data set all increased in significance (LOD = 2.35, P = 0.0005 at rs863820 on chromosome 6; LOD = 2.32, P = 0.0005 at rs7904367 at 160.38 cM on chromosome 10; and LOD = 2.27, P = 0.0006 at rs9733150 on chromosome 11). The linkage analysis was also repeated for a separate subset of the UK families (132 families, 212 cases) in which disease status corresponded to being positive for RN. Only one peak with LOD >2 was observed (LOD = 2.02, P = 0.001), at rs1860436 on chromosome 12.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Nonparametric linkage analysis results (all regions with LOD >1)

 
We also carried out parametric linkage analysis (allowing for heterogeneity) under fully penetrant recessive and dominant models. The results (with disease coded as positive for cases with VUR and/or RN) are shown in Table 2. Several peak heterogeneity LODs (HLODs) occur close to nonparametric linkage analysis peaks, but, in addition, under a recessive model, we found three new peaks: In the Slovenian data, HLOD = 2.72 at rs2162769, and in the combined data, HLOD = 3.02 at rs484936 and HLOD = 2.87 at rs475188. Also in the UK data, rs928720, which showed weak significance (LOD = 1.46) in nonparametric analysis, showed stronger significance (HLOD = 3.12) in parametric analysis under a recessive model.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Parametric linkage analysis results (all regions with HLOD >2 under either a recessive or a dominant model)

 
Association Analysis
The significant results from the family-based association studies (using SNPs passing medium, stringent, or very stringent quality control [QC] thresholds) are shown in Table 3. Figure 1 shows a Manhattan plot of the genome-wide results from the transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) analysis using a medium-stringency SNP selection criterion. Figures 2 through 4 show quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots18 of the TDT statistics obtained in the UK, Slovenian, and combined data sets at different levels of stringency of SNP selection. Results are shown with or without use of a robust clustered sandwich estimator of the variance19,20 to correct for any nonindependence between related individuals. In the UK data set, little evidence is seen for association at the very stringent, stringent, or medium thresholds, beyond what is expected from genome-wide testing. The top-ranked SNP at the medium threshold is rs11083021 on chromosome 18 (P = 3.06 x 10–6). In the Slovenian data set, at the very stringent criterion, two SNPs on chromosome 5 (rs17144806 and rs4895183) show significance beyond what is expected from genome-wide testing (P = 5.81 x 10–7 and P = 2.55 x 10–6, respectively). A third SNP (rs16963279 on chromosome 18) shows significance (P = 3.13 x 10–6) at the medium criterion. In the combined data set, at the very stringent SNP selection criterion, little evidence is seen for association, but two SNPs show significance at the stringent criterion (rs11029158 on chromosome 11 [P = 1.82 x 10–6] and rs1696803 on chromosome 10 [P = 2.25 x 10–6]). These are joined by a third (rs2102860 on chromosome 3; P = 7.43 x 10–7) at the medium criterion. Interestingly, this SNP lies only approximately 2.2 Mb from the modest linkage peak (LOD = 1.411) seen at rs7635068 in the combined data set.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Top family-based association results from TDT (for autosomal loci) and UNPHASED (for chromosome X) analyses

 


Figure 1
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1. Manhattan plot of the TDT statistics using the medium level of SNP selection stringency is shown.

 


Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 2. Q-Q plot of TDT statistics in UK data at different levels of stringency of SNP selection is shown.

 


Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 3. Q-Q plot of TDT statistics in Slovenian data at different levels of stringency of SNP selection in shown.

 


Figure 4
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 4. Q-Q plot of TDT statistics in combined (UK and Slovenian) data at different levels of stringency of SNP selection is shown.

 
Family-based association analysis for the UK and combined data was repeated using the subset of 615 from the original 661 cases in which disease status was coded as positive for VUR, rather than positive for VUR and/or RN (see Supplemental Figures 5 and 6). For the UK data, there is little evidence for association (beyond what is expected from genome-wide testing) at any SNP selection criterion, although the top-ranked SNPs remain the same as when using the wider phenotype definition. For the combined data, the same top-ranked SNPs are identified at the stringent and medium criteria as were identified using the wider phenotype definition (rs11029158 on chromosome 11 [P = 2.7 x 10–7], rs1696803 on chromosome 10 [P = 5.27 x 10–6] and rs2102860 on chromosome 3 [P = 3.5 x 10–7]); however, interestingly, with the narrower phenotype definition, these results show increased significance and better separation in the Q-Q plots from the bulk of the results that lie on the straight line with slope 1. We also repeated the association analysis for a separate subset of the UK families (132 families, 212 cases) in which disease status corresponded purely to being positive for RN but found nothing of significance

Supplemental Figures 7 and 8 show Q-Q plots from the family-based analysis of chromosome X SNPs using UNPHASED.21 Although none reach genome-wide significance thresholds, it is notable that two SNPs (rs1983167 and rs7881785) passing the very stringent QC threshold show clear departure from the theoretical {chi}2 distribution (P = 5.22 x 10–5 and P = 6.97 x 10–5, respectively, in the combined [UK and Slovenian]) data). We found no significant associations with any of the SNPs in AGTR2, HNF1B, PAX2, RET, ROBO2, or UPK3A in either the UK or Slovenian data sets, taking into account the multiple tests (146 tests) performed.

Table 4 shows the significant results from our case-control (SNPTEST and STATA logistic regression) analyses at all SNPs passing the medium QC threshold, using our UK VUR cases together with 2938 Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) controls. We used genomic control22 to adjust our SNPTEST results for inflation as a result of relatedness between cases (see Supplemental Figure 9 for Q-Q plots and details of adjustment for related cases). We used a robust clustered sandwich estimator of the variance to adjust for relatedness in STATA.19,20 Overall, there was close correspondence between the top-ranking results from the STATA logistic regression analysis and the SNPTEST analysis. The most significant results from the STATA analysis were rs1159217 on chromosome 10 (P = 3.96 x 10–7) and rs17306391 on chromosome 11 (P = 5.67 x 10–7) and from the SNPTEST analysis, rs12604993 on chromosome 18 (P = 2.38 x 10–7).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Top-ranking results from case-control analysis performed using either SNPTEST (with or without the ‘-proper’ option) or logistic regression in STATA

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
Concise methods
 Disclosures
 References
 
We presented here the results from a genome-wide linkage and association analysis in primary, nonsyndromic VUR and RN. Parametric linkage analysis, which uses assumptions about the mode of inheritance of the disease, is often used to map diseases to genomic regions harboring the causative gene and has been very successful in identifying genes for Mendelian disorders.23–26 Nonparametric linkage analysis seeks genomic regions where pairs or groups of affected relatives share more alleles inherited by descent from their common ancestor(s) than expected by chance, making no assumptions about mode of inheritance. In common with many previous genome scans in complex diseases, our nonparametric linkage analyses found a number of regions showing modest linkage signals that did not generally replicate across study groups (either our own or previous studies12,13). Nonparametric linkage analysis of VUR and/or RN identified one locus (on chromosome 2) with LOD >2 in the UK cases, three loci (on chromosomes 6, 11, and X) with LOD >2 in the Slovenian cases, and three loci (on chromosomes 2, 11, and 21) with LOD >2 in the combined data set, but no peaks with a LOD >3. The peak on chromosome 21 could correspond to a weakly significant result (P = 0.006) in the study of Kelly et al.13 The very weak peak we observed on chromosome 3 in the Slovenian data set could correspond to a similarly weak result (P = 0.003) in the study of Kelly et al.13 Restricting analysis to those with documented VUR increased the significance to LOD >2 for the peaks on chromosome 6 in the UK data set and on chromosome 10 in the combined data set. This is of interest because the chromosome 6 and chromosome 10 peaks could potentially correspond to results (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.0005 respectively) found in the study of Kelly et al.13

Parametric linkage analysis assuming a recessive disease model provided stronger evidence for linkage at rs484936 (HLOD = 3.02) on chromosome 3 and rs2835104 (HLOD = 3.21) on chromsome 21 in the combined data set, at rs4669767 (HLOD = 3.02) on chromosome 2 and rs928720 on chromosome 6 (HLOD = 3.12) in the UK data set, and at rs2097171 on chromosome 11 (HLOD = 3.33) in the Slovenian data set. Parametric linkage analysis assuming a dominant disease model gave one HLOD >3, at rs9977677 on chromosome 21. All of these linkage regions contain a large number of genes (between 11 and 34 genes using an "HLOD minus 1" threshold and between 23 and 131 genes using an "HLOD minus 2" threshold). Although HLODs >3 are encouraging, the fact that we have maximized the LOD score over two models (recessive and dominant) as well as over a heterogeneity parameter {alpha} (the proportion of linked families) means that we should interpret these results cautiously. Abreu et al.27 suggested that, in these circumstances, subtraction of 0.3 from the final HLOD would be an appropriate correction.

We did not find linkage in the region on chromosome 12 reported by Weng et al.15 Seven families contributed to the locus reported by Weng et al.: Four Hasidic Jewish, two Italian, and an Irish American but with the major contribution coming from two of the Hasidic Jewish families. The authors postulated that this locus could be important in families of various ethnic origins, but it does not seem to account for a significant proportion of families in either of the populations we have studied. The conclusion from our and previous linkage analyses is that if rare familial mutations contribute to recurrence, then many genes are likely to be involved and an alternative approach to identifying these genes28 would be to screen for rare mutations in genes regulating development of the urinary tract, as has been done for genes coding for salt-handling molecules in the context of human blood pressure variation.29

Association studies allow one to test the contribution of particular common alleles to disease. The TDT examines transmission of alleles from heterozygous parents to affected offspring: Under the null hypothesis, there should be no preferential transmission of one allele over another, whereas under the alternative hypothesis, the high-risk allele should be transmitted more often to affected offspring. The TDT provides a test that is robust to population stratification, unlike standard case-control association analysis; however, the advantage of additionally performing case-control analysis in our data is the greater power that can potentially be achieved, first through use of a larger control sample and second by the ascertainment "bias" induced through the comparison of cases who have a close relative (a sibling) who also has the disease, with standard population control subjects.30–32

A number of loci in the association analyses approached genome-wide significance levels; however, there was relatively little concordance in the results from our two study groups (UK and Slovenian) or between the results from our linkage and association analyses. This is not surprising given the relatively small sample size of the individual population groups, meaning that the power to detect small effects as conferred by most risk alleles in complex diseases will be low.18 rs11083021 is in intron 3 of OSBPL1A, which encodes oxysterol-binding protein–like 1A, a member of the OSBP family of intracellular lipid receptors. The two chromsome 5 SNPs detected in the Slovenian analysis, rs4895183 and rs17144806, and rs17175928 and rs16963279 are intronic SNPs in genes of unknown function, DTWD2, C10orf72, and FAM59A, respectively. rs2102860 is in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with RTP4, which encodes a Golgi chaperone that plays a role in movement of µ-{delta} opioid receptor to the cell surface membrane33 and may be involved in membrane targetting of other G protein–coupled receptors. rs1983167 and rs7881785 both are in LD with the monoamine oxidase inhibitors MAOA and MAOB. rs12604993 is in LD with TXNL4A (thioredoxin-like 4A). Two SNPs identified in the family-based analysis, rs1696803 and rs11029158, and two identified in the case-control analysis of the UK cases, rs11599217 and rs17306391, are not in LD with transcripts.

We also tested for association with six candidate genes previously implicated in human renal tract development: AGTR2, HNF1B, PAX2, RET, ROBO2, and UPK3A. Mutations have been identified in ROBO2 and HNF1B in patients with urinary tract malformations,34,35 but we found no evidence of an association between common alleles in these genes and VUR in this study. Yim et al.36 reported association between an AGTR2 intronic variant and diverse kidney malformations, although this was not replicated in two studies.37,38 Yang et al.39 presented data for association with between a RET polymorphism (p.Gly691Ser) and VUR, but this was not replicated in an Irish cohort.40 Jiang et al.41 reported a weak association between a UPK3A missense polymorphism and VUR. We have not detected significant association with any of these genes and VUR in the UK, Slovenian, or combined VUR patient groups.

The final size of our study (320 families, 661 affected individuals, 140,484 SNPs) is modest in size and genome coverage is incomplete; nevertheless, it is by far the largest genetic study of VUR to date. Given the small sample size of our collection, our results should be interpreted with caution. Our genome-wide association analyses are perhaps best considered as exploratory, the findings from which require replication in larger cohorts. An obvious question regarding the association analysis is what coverage of the genome was achieved. The Affymetrix 500K SNP array set (consisting of two arrays, Sty and Nsp) has been previously estimated42 to provide 65% coverage of the genome at R2 = 0.8. This leaves a 35% chance that none of the SNPs genotyped reaches this level of correlation with a causal variant. Our study (conceived originally as a linkage study) used only a single array from the 500K set (the Nsp array), which approximately halves the number of SNPs genotyped. QC procedures reduced the number of SNPs still further, reducing our coverage to levels that are probably closer to the 31% provided by the Affymetrix 111K array.42 Increasing sample size and conducting a whole-genome association scan with a much denser array, taking advantage of recent improvements in genotyping quality and genotype calling,43 an approach that has achieved recent success in other complex genetic diseases,18,44–49 is the natural next step in testing whether common variants contribute to VUR.


   Concise Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Concise methods
Disclosures
 References
 
Sample Collection
The study, which adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki, was approved by UK Research Ethics Committees and the Slovenian National Ethics Committee; informed consent was obtained before sample collection. In the United Kingdom, families were referred by primary physicians from the UK VUR Study Group (listed in acknowledgments). The inclusion criteria for UK families were an index case with VUR diagnosed using x-ray cystography or radionuclide cystography, together with an affected sibling with radiologically proven VUR and/or RN demonstrated on DMSA scanning. Blood samples were collected from affected siblings and their parents, and DNA was extracted by standard procedures. The UK collection comprises 189 index cases with 219 affected siblings (161 sibling pairs, 26 families with three affected children, and two families with four affected children). A total of 120 of the index cases had both VUR and RN, 60 had VUR only, and information on RN was not available for the remaining nine index cases; 77 of the siblings had both VUR and RN, 78 had VUR only, 40 had RN only, and information on RN was not available in the remaining 24 siblings with VUR.

Slovenian patients were identified from the database of children who were referred to the Department of Pediatric Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana. Suitable families were identified by screening the database for children who had VUR and for whom the reason for investigation was a sibling with VUR. VUR was diagnosed by voiding urosonography,50 radionuclide cystography, or, in a few cases, x-ray cystography. Blood samples were collected from affected siblings and their parents, and DNA was extracted by standard procedures. The Slovenian collection comprises 149 index cases with 169 affected siblings (133 sibling pairs, 13 families with three affected children, two families with four affected children, and one family with five affected children).

All of the cases we collected had primary VUR (i.e., there were no cases with anatomic or neurogenic bladder outflow obstruction), and we excluded families in which the index case or sibling had additional structural defects in the urinary tract. In both the UK and Slovenian collections, parental disease status was coded as unknown. Parental DNA was genotyped in 612 parents from the 320 families. Three unaffected siblings (from the UK collection) were also genotyped and included in the linkage analysis.

DNA Analysis
Genotyping of the samples was carried out by the company Geneservice, using the Affymetrix 262,264 SNP NspI array. Genotypes at the 262,264 SNPs were assigned ("called") from the raw intensity data using the CHIAMO algorithm.18 For the six candidate genes, we used the Tagger option in the program Haploview to identify SNPs to provide coverage at R2 = 0.8. This resulted in 101 SNPs for ROBO2, 12 for RET, 10 for PAX2, 17 for HNF1B, five for UPK3A, and three for AGTR2 (Supplemental Table 1), and these were typed by Sequenom.

Quality Control
Stringent QC checks were used to ensure the accuracy of the final genotype data and pedigree information (details in Supplemental information). The final number of samples remaining after all of the sample QC checks had been carried out was 1282 (comprising 692 UK samples and 590 Slovenian samples) in 320 families (172 UK families and 148 Slovenian families) of an original 1398 samples genotyped. We used these samples to re-perform QC measures on the SNPs, to choose SNPs with the most reliable genotype calls for the final analysis. We selected SNPs at five different levels of stringency, as shown in Supplemental Table 2.

Linkage Analysis
We used SNPs passing the very stringent QC threshold to perform multipoint nonparametric (model-free) linkage analysis across the genome. For reasons of computational efficiency, we thinned our set of SNPs to use a single SNP—that with the highest heterozygosity—in each 1-cM window. Examination of the resulting information content plots (Supplemental Figure 4) indicates that this thinned set of SNPs provides adequate linkage information. We used the programs MERLIN and MINX51 to calculate information content and test for linkage using a multipoint "equivalent LOD score" to the Kong and Cox exponential model likelihood-based allele-sharing test.17 We also used MERLIN and MINX to perform parametric linkage analysis allowing for heterogeneity (an "HLOD" analysis), assuming a disease allele frequency of 0.01, under both recessive (penetrances 0.01, 0.01, and 0.99) and dominant (penetrances 0.01, 0.99, and 0.99) models.27

Association Analysis
We used the TDT52 at each SNP passing our various QC filters. We calculated the TDT using the R package DGCgenetics (1) assuming each case/parent trio was an independent unit and (2) allowing for nonindependence between related trios (e.g., affected sibling pairs) through use of a robust clustered sandwich estimator of the variance.19,20 Significance was assessed through examination of Q-Q plots,18 which is broadly equivalent to use of a Bonferroni correction to assess the overall significance of a given result in light of the multiple tests performed.

The candidate gene SNPs were analyzed by TDT. Because analysis of these genes was hypothesis driven, we did not apply the same multiple correction factor as already discussed but instead corrected for the 146 independent tests.

For the UK cases, we additionally used the affected offspring (cases) together with a sample of 2938 control subjects (genotyped at the same SNPs by the WTCCC18) to perform case-control analysis. We used the program SNPTEST18 to perform frequentist case-control association tests at each SNP passing our medium QC filters, first using the default options and then additionally allowing for genotype uncertainty via use of the ‘-proper’ option within SNPTEST. We incorporated as covariates in the analysis the first six principal components from a principal components analysis performed using the ‘smartpca’ routine within the EIGENSOFT package,53 using a set of 45,459 markers chosen to be in low LD with one another (R2 < 0.2) and using only unrelated individuals (the WTCCC control subjects and a single case from each VUR sibship) to infer the eigenvectors, onto which the remaining individuals were then projected. This approach has been previously proposed to adjust for population stratification.53 Logistic regression (incorporating the same six covariates) in STATA was also performed at each SNP (1) assuming that each case/parent trio was independent and (2) allowing for nonindependence between related cases through use of a robust clustered sandwich estimator of the variance.19,20 We used genomic control22 to adjust our SNPTEST results for inflation as a result of relatedness between cases.

We analyzed SNPs on chromosome X separately from the autosomal SNPs, using, for the family data, a likelihood-based analysis as implemented in the program UNPHASED21 and, for the case/control data, logistic regression analysis including the first six principal components as covariates as described already, with robust clustered variance estimates. The rationale for treating chromosome X SNPs separately was that many of the methods and programs described already for autosomal analysis are not directly applicable to X-linked loci.54

Visual assessment of the cluster plots18 on which genotype calls were based (see supplemental information) was performed for SNPs showing significant association with disease. All except one SNP (rs16963279 on chromosome 18 from Table 3) showed reasonable separation among the three genotype clusters. rs16963279 showed only two genotype clusters, probably because the minor allele frequency is sufficiently low that no homozygotes for the minor allele were observed in our samples.


   Disclosures
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Concise methods
 Disclosures
References
 
None.


   Acknowledgments
 
This project was supported by the British Association for Pediatric Nephrology (BAPN), the Medical Research Council (MRC) (Grant reference G0600040), and the Wellcome Trust (Grant references 066647, 070327, and 074524).

Members of the UK VUR Study Group were Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne: M. Coulthard, H. Lambert, E. Hunter, M. Kier, N. Moghal, M. Ognanovic, S. Vernon; Cumberland Infirmary: J. Storr; West Cumberland Infirmary: J. Jackson; University Hospital of North Tees: I. Verber; James Cook University Hosptal, Middlesborough: S. Sinha; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: M. Fitzpatrick, S. Feather; Royal Manchester's Children's Hospital: M. Lewis, N. Webb, M. Bradbury, N. Plant, R. Postlethwaite, D.J. O'Donoghue; Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital: D. Hughes, C. Jones, B. Judd; Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children: M. Savage, M. O'Connor, M. Convery; Burnley General Hospital: J. Iqbal; Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow: H. Maxwell, J. Beattie; Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh: S. Taheri; Great Ormond Street Hospital, London: P. Cuckow, S. Marks, L. Rees, R. Trompeter, K. Tullus, W. Van't Hoff, D. Wilcox, A. Woolf; Evelina Children's Hospital, London: G. Haycock, C. Reid, S. Rigdon; Nottingham City Hospital: A. Watson; Birmingham Children's Hospital: S. Hulton, D. Milford, S. Stephens, C.M. Taylor; Bristol Royal Hospital for Sick Children: J. Dudley, C. Inward, M. McGraw, J. Tizard; University Hospital of Wales: K. Verrier-Jones; St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth: J. Scanlan; Leicester Royal Infirmary: P. Houtman; Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge: R. Sandford; Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, Margate: E. Rfidah; University College Hospital, London: D. Hodes, A. Kilby; Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry: N. Coad; Derriford Hospital, Plymouth: R. Jones; Gloucester Royal Hospital: L. Jadresic; Northampton General Hospital: N. Griffin; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn: J. Dossetor, A. Hughes; Whittington Hospital, London: M. Jaswon.

We thank Hin-Tak Leung, Jonathan Marchini, and Chris Spencer for assistance with use of software developed by the WTCCC. We thank and acknowledge the oversight provided to the collectors through the VUR Development Group, led by Kidney Research UK, which included representation from the wider research community and the BAPN.


   Footnotes
 
Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

Supplemental information for this article is available online at http://www.jasn.org/.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Concise methods
 Disclosures
 References
 

  1. Risdon RA, Yeung CK, Ransley PG: Reflux nephropathy in children submitted to unilateral nephrectomy: A clinicopathological study. Clin Nephrol 40: 308–314, 1993[Medline]
  2. Yeung CK, Godley ML, Dhillon HK, Gordon I, Duffy PG, Ransley PG: The characteristics of primary vesico-ureteric reflux in male and female infants with pre-natal hydronephrosis. Br J Urol 80: 319–327, 1997[Medline]
  3. Williams G, Fletcher JT, Alexander SI, Craig JC: Vesicoureteral reflux. J Am Soc Nephrol 19: 847–862, 2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. The Renal Association, UK Renal Registry, The Ninth Annual Report. Available at: http://www.renalreg.com/Reports/2006.html. Accessed November 2, 2009
  5. Kenda RB, Fettich JJ: Vesicoureteric reflux and renal scars in asymptomatic siblings of children with reflux. Arch Intern Med 67: 506–508, 1992
  6. Hollowell JG, Greenfield SP: Screening siblings for vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 168: 2138–2141, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Noe HN, Wyatt RJ, Peeden JN Jr, Rivas ML: The transmission of vesicoureteral reflux from parent to child. J Urol 148: 1869–1871, 1992[Medline]
  8. Kaefer M, Curran M, Treves ST, Bauer S, Hendren WH, Peters CA, Atala A, Diamond D, Retik A: Sibling vesicoureteral reflux in multiple gestation births. Pediatrics 105: 800–804, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Feather SA, Malcolm S, Woolf AS, Wright V, Blaydon D, Reid CJ, Flinter FA, Proesmans W, Devriendt K, Carter J, Warwicker P, Goodship TH, Goodship JA: Primary, nonsyndromic vesicoureteric reflux and its nephropathy is genetically heterogenous, with a locus on chromosome 1. Am J Hum Genet 66: 1420–1425, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Sanna-Cherchi S, Reese A, Hensle T, Caridi G, Izzi C, Kim YY, Konka A, Murer L, Scolari F, Ravazzolo R, Ghiggeri GM, Gharavi AG: Familial vesicoureteral reflux: Testing replication of linkage in seven new multigenerational kindreds. J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 1781–1787, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Vats KR, Ishwad C, Singla I, Vats A, Ferrell R, Ellis D, Moritz M, Surti U, Jayakar P, Frederick DR, Vats AN: A locus for renal malformations including vesico-ureteric reflux on chromosome 13q33–34. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 1158–1167, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Conte ML, Bertoli-Avella AM, de Graaf BM, Punzo F, Lama G, La Manna A, Grassia C, Rambaldi PF, Oostra BA, Perrotta S: A genome search for primary vesicoureteral reflux shows further evidence for genetic heterogeneity. Pediatr Nephrol 23: 587–595, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Kelly H, Molony C, Darlow JM, Pirker ME, Yoneda A, Green AJ, Puri P, Barton DE: A genome-wide scan for genes involved in primary vesicoureteric reflux. J Med Genet 44: 710–717, 2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Lander E, Kruglak L: Genetic dissection of complex traits: Guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat Genet 11: 241–247, 1995[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Weng PL, Sanna-Cherchi S, Hensle T, Shapiro E, Werzberger A, Caridi G, Izzi C, Konka A, Reese AC, Cheng R, Werzberger S, Schlussel RN, Burk RD, Lee JH, Ravazzolo R, Scolari F, Ghiggeri GM, Glassberg K, Gharavi AG: A recessive gene for primary vesicoureteral reflux maps to chromosome 12p11–q13. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 1633–1640, 2009[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Kerecuk L, Schreuder MF, Woolf AS: Renal tract malformations: Perspectives for nephrologists. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 4: 312–325, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Kong A, Cox NJ: Allele-sharing models: LOD scores and accurate linkage tests. Am J Hum Genet 61: 1179–1188, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium: Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447: 661–678, 2007[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Huber P: The behaviour of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. I, edited by Le Cam L, Neyman J Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967, pp 221–233
  20. White H: Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica 50: 1–25, 1982[CrossRef]
  21. Dudbridge F: Likelihood-based association analysis for nuclear families and unrelated subjects with missing genotype data. Hum Hered 66: 87–98, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Devlin B, Roeder K, Bacanu SA: Unbiased methods for population-based association studies. Genet Epidemiol 21: 273–284, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Gusella JF, Wexler NS, Conneally PM, Naylor SL, Anderson MA, Tanzi RE, Watkins PC, Ottina K, Wallace MR, Sakaguchi AY, Young AB, Shoulson I, Bonilla E, Martin JB: A polymorphic DNA marker genetically linked to Huntingdon's disease. Nature 306: 234–238, 1983[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Kerem B, Rommens JM, Buchana JA, Markiewicz D, Cox TK, Chakravarti M, Buchwald M, Tsui LC: Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: Genetic analysis. Science 245: 1073–1080, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Riordan JR, Rommens JM, Kerem B, Alon N, Rozmahel R, Grzelczak Z, Zielenski J, Lod S, Plavsic N, Chou J, Drumm ML, Iannuzzi MC, Collins FS, Tsui L: Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: Cloning and characterization of complementary DNA. Science 245: 1066–1072, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Rommens J, Iannuzzi M, Kerem BS, Drumm M, Melmer G, Dean M, Rozmahel R, Cole J, Kennedy D, Hidaka N, Zsiga M, Buchwald M, Riordan J, Tsui LC, Collins F: Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: Chromosome walking and jumping. Science 245: 1059–1065, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Abreu PC, Hodge SE, Greenberg DA: Quantification of type I error probabilities for heterogeneity LOD scores. Genet Epidemiol 22: 156–169, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Li B, Leal SM: Methods for detecting associations with rare variants for common diseases: Application to analysis of sequence data. Am J Hum Genet 83: 311–321, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Ji W, Foo JN, O'Roak BJ, Zhao H, Larson MG, Simon DB, Newton-Cheh C, State MW, Levy D, Lifton RP: Rare independent mutations in renal salt handling genes contribute to blood pressure variation. Nat Genet 40: 592–599, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Risch N: Implications of multilocus inheritance for gene-disease association studies. Theoretical Population Biology 60: 215–220, 2008[CrossRef]
  31. Antoniou AC, Easton DF: Polygenic inheritance of breast cancer: Implications for design of association studies. Genet Epidemiol 25: 190–202, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Howson JM, Barratt BJ, Todd JA, Cordell HJ: Comparison of population and family-based methods for genetic association analysis in the presence of interacting loci. Genet Epidemiol 29: 51–67, 2005[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Decaillot FM, Rozenfeld R, Gupta A, Devi LA: Cell surface targeting of µ-{delta} opioid receptor heterodimers by RTP4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 16045–16050, 2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Lu W, van Eerde AM, Fan X, Quintero-Rivera F, Kulkarni S, Ferguson H, Kim HG, Fan Y, Xi Q, Li QG, Sanlaville D, Andrews W, Sundaresan V, Bi W, Yan J, Giltay JC, Wijmenga C, de Jong TP, Feather SA, Woolf AS, Rao Y, Lupski JR, Eccles MR, Quade BJ, Gusella JF, Morton CC, Maas R: Disruption of ROBO2 is associated with urinary tract anomalies and confers risk of vesicoureteral reflux. Am J Hum Genet 80: 616–632, 2007[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Adalat S, Woolf AS, Johnstone KA, Wirsing A, Harries L, Long DA, Hennekam RC, Ledermann SE, Rees L, van't Hoff W, Marks SD, Trompeter RS, Tullus K, Winyard PJ, Cansick J, Mushtaq I, Dhillon HK, Bingham C, Edghill EL, Shroff R, Stanescu H, Ryffel GU, Ellard S, Bockenhauer D: HNF1B mutations associate with hypomagnesemia and renal magnesium wasting. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 1123–1131, 2009[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Yim HE, Jung MJ, Choi BM, Bae IS, Yoo KH, Hong YS, Lee JW, Kim SK: Genetic polymorphism of the renin-angiotensin system on the development of primary vesicoureteral reflux. Am J Nephrol 24: 178–187, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Hohenfellner K, Hunley TE, Yerkes E, Habermehl P, Hohenfellner R, Kon V: Angiotensin II, type 2 receptor in the development of vesico-ureteric reflux. BJU Int 83: 318–322, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Yoneda A, Cascio S, Green A, Barton D, Puri P: Angiotensin II type 2 receptor gene is not responsible for familial vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 168: 1138–1141, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Yang Y, Houle AM, Letendre J, Richter A: RET Gly691Ser mutation is associated with primary vesicoureteral reflux in the French-Canadian population from Quebec. Hum Mutat 29: 695–702, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Darlow JM, Molloy NH, Green AJ, Puri P, Barton DE: The increased incidence of the RET p.Gly691Ser variant in French-Canadian vesicoureteric reflux patients is not replicated by a larger study in Ireland. Hum Mutat 30: E612–E617, 2009[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Jiang S, Gitlin J, Deng FM, Liang FX, Lee A, Atala A, Bauer SB, Ehrlich GD, Feather SA, Goldberg JD, Goodship JA, Goodship TH, Hermanns M, Hu FZ, Jones KE, Malcolm S, Mendelsohn C, Preston RA, Retik AB, Schneck FX, Wright V, Ye XY, Woolf AS, Wu XR, Ostrer H, Shapiro E, Yu J, Sun TT: Lack of major involvement of human uroplakin genes in vesicoureteral reflux: Implications for disease heterogeneity. Kidney Int 66: 10–19, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Barrett JC, Cardon LR: Evaluating coverage of genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 38: 659–662, 2006[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Korn JM, Kuruvilla FG, McCarroll SA, Wysoker A, Nemesh J, Cawley S, Hubbell E, Veitch J, Collins PJ, Darvishi K, Lee C, Nizzari MM, Gabriel SB, Purcell S, Daly MJ, Altshuler D: Integrated genotype calling and association analysis of SNPs, common copy number polymorphisms and rare CNVs. Nat Genet 40: 1253–1260, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, Pharoah PD, Thompson D, Ballinger DG, Struewing JP, Morrison J, Field H, Luben R, Wareham N, Ahmed S, Healey CS, Bowman R, SEARCH collaborators, Meyer KB, Haiman CA, Kolonel LK, Henderson BE, Marchand LL, Brennan P, Sangrajrang S, Gaborieau V, Odefrey F, Shen CY, Wu PE, Wang HC, Eccles D, Evans DG, Peto J, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Seal S, Stratton MR, Rahman N, Chenevix-Trench G, G SEBB, Nordestgaard, Axelsson CK, Garcia-Closas M, Brinton L, Chanock S, Lissowska J, Peplonska B, Nevanlinna H, Fagerholm R, Eerola H, Kang D, Yoo KY, Noh DY, Ahn SH, Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE, Cox DG, Hall P, Wedren S, Liu J, Low YL, Bogdanova N, Schurmann P, Dork T, Tollenaar RA, Jacobi CE, Devilee P, Klijn JG, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Alexander BH, Zhang J, Cox A, Brock IW, MacPherson G, Reed MW, Couch FJ, Goode EL, Olson JE, Meijers-Heijboer H, van den Ouweland A, Uitterlinden A, Rivadeneira F, Milne RL, Ribas G, Gonzalez-Neira A, Benitez J, Hopper JL, McCredie M, Southey M, Giles GG, Schroen C, Justenhoven C, Brauch H, Hamann U, Ko YD, Spurdle AB, Beesley J, Chen X, kConFab, AOCS Management Group, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Hartikainen J, Day NE, Cox DR, Ponder BA: Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 447: 1087–1093, 2007[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, Zeggini E, Freathy RM, Lindgren CM, Perry JR, Elliott KS, Lango H, Rayner NW, Shields B, Harries LW, Barrett JC, Ellard S, Groves CJ, Knight B, Patch AM, Ness AR, Ebrahim S, Lawlor DA, Ring SM, Ben-Shlomo Y, Jarvelin MR, Sovio U, Bennett AJ, Melzer D, Ferrucci L, Loos RJ, Barroso I, Wareham NJ, Karpe F, Owen KR, Cardon LR, Walker M, Hitman GA, Palmer CN, Doney AS, Morris AD, Smith GD, Hattersley AT, McCarthy MI: A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 316: 889–894, 2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Zeggini E, Weedon MN, Lindgren CM, Frayling TM, Elliott KS, Lango H, Timpson NJ, Perry JR, Rayner NW, Freathy RM, Barrett JC, Shields B, Morris AP, Ellard S, Groves CJ, Harries LW, Marchini JL, Owen KR, Knight B, Cardon LR, Walker M, Hitman GA, Morris AD, Doney AS, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC), McCarthy MI, Hattersley AT: Replication of genome-wide association signals in UK samples reveals risk loci for type 2 diabetes [published erratum appears in Science 317: 1035–1036, 2007]. Science 316: 1336–1341, 2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Todd J, Walker N, Cooper J, Smyth D, Downes K, Plagnol V, Bailey R, Nejentsev S, Field S, Payne F, Lowe C, Szeszko J, Hafler J, Zeitels L, Yang J, Vella A, Nutland S, Stevens H, Schuilenburg H, Coleman G, Maisuria M, Meadows W, Smink L, Healy B, Burren O, Lam A, Ovington N, Allen J, Adlem E, Leung H, Wallace C, Howson J, Guja C, Ionescu-Tirgoviste C, Genetics of Type 1 Diabetes in Finland, Simmonds M, Heward J, Gough S, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Dunger D, Wicker L, Clayton D: Robust associations of four new chromosome regions from genome-wide analyses of type 1 diabetes. Nat Genet 39: 857–864, 2007[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Fellay J, Shianna KV, Ge D, Colombo S, Ledergerber B, Weale M, Zhang K, Gumbs C, Castagna A, Cossarizza A, Cozzi-Lepri A, Luca AD, Easterbrook P, Francioli P, Mallal S, Martinez-Picado J, Miro JM, Obel N, Smith JP, Wyniger J, Descombes P, Antonarakis SE, Letvin NL, McMichael AJ, Haynes BF, Telenti A, Goldstein DB: A whole-genome association study of major determinants for host control of HIV-1. Science 317: 944–947, 2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Zeggini E, Scott LJ, Saxena R, Voight BF, Marchini JL, Hu T, de Bakker PI, Abecasis GR, Almgren P, Andersen G, Ardlie K, Boström KB, Bergman RN, Bonnycastle LL, Borch-Johnsen K, Burtt NP, Chen H, Chines PS, Daly MJ, Deodhar P, Ding CJ, Doney AS, Duren WL, Elliott KS, Erdos MR, Frayling TM, Freathy RM, Gianniny L, Grallert H, Grarup N, Groves CJ, Guiducci C, Hansen T, Herder C, Hitman GA, Hughes TE, Isomaa B, Jackson AU, Jørgensen T, Kong A, Kubalanza K, Kuruvilla FG, Kuusisto J, Langenberg C, Lango H, Lauritzen T, Li Y, Lindgren CM, Lyssenko V, Marvelle AF, Meisinger C, Midthjell K, Mohlke KL, Morken MA, Morris AD, Narisu N, Nilsson P, Owen KR, Palmer CN, Payne F, Perry JR, Pettersen E, Platou C, Prokopenko I, Qi L, Qin L, Rayner NW, Rees M, Roix JJ, Sandbaek A, Shields B, Sjögren M, Steinthorsdottir V, Stringham HM, Swift AJ, Thorleifsson G, Thorsteinsdottir U, Timpson NJ, Tuomi T, Tuomilehto J, Walker M, Watanabe RM, Weedon MN, Willer CJ, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Illig T, Hveem K, Hu FB, Laakso M, Stefansson K, Pedersen O, Wareham NJ, Barroso I, Hattersley AT, Collins FS, Groop L, McCarthy MI, Boehnke M, Altshuler D: Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data and large-scale replication identifies additional susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 40: 638–645, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  50. Darge K: Voiding urosonography with US contrast agents for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in children II: Comparison with radiological examinations. Pediatr Radiol 38: 54–63, 2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Abecasis GR, Cherney SS, Cookson WO, Cardon LR: Merlin-rapid analysis of dense genetic maps using sparse gene flow trees. Nat Genet 30: 97–101, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Spielman RS, McGinnis RE, Ewens WJ: Transmission test for linkage disequilibrium: The insulin gene region and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Hum Genet 52: 506–516, 1993[Medline]
  53. Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D: Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 38: 904–909, 2006[CrossRef][Medline]
  54. Clayton D: Testing for association on the X chromosome. Biostatistics 9: 593–600, 2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2009060624v1
21/1/113    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cordell, H. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cordell, H. J.

HOME CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP