Motivation: A common task in analyzing microarray data is to determine which genes are differentially expressed across two kinds of tissue samples or samples obtained under two experimental conditions. Recently several statistical methods have been proposed to accomplish this goal when there are replicated samples under each condition. However, it may not be clear how these methods compare with each other. Our main goal here is to compare three methods, the t-test, a regression modeling approach (Thomas et al. , Genome Res. , 11, 1227–1236, 2001) and a mixture model approach (Pan et al. , http://www.biostat.umn.edu/cgi-bin/rrs?print+2001,2001a,b) with particular attention to their different modeling assumptions. Results: It is pointed out that all the three methods are based on using the two-sample t-statistic or its minor variation, but they differ in how to associate a statistical significance level to the corresponding statistic, leading to possibly large difference in the resulting significance levels and the numbers of genes detected. In particular, we give an explicit formula for the test statistic used in the regression approach. Using the leukemia data of Golub et al. (Science , 285, 531–537, 1999), we illustrate these points. We also briefly compare the results with those of several other methods, including the empirical Bayesian method of Efron et al. (J. Am. Stat. Assoc. , to appear, 2001) and the Significance Analysis of Microarray (SAM) method of Tusher et al. (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA , 98, 5116–5121, 2001). Contact: weip@biostat.umn.edu

With the increasing availability of large-scale GWAS summary data on various traits, Mendelian randomization (MR) has become commonly used to infer causality between a pair of traits, an exposure and an outcome. It depends on using genetic variants, typically SNPs, as instrumental variables (IVs). The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method (with a fixed-effect meta-analysis model) is most powerful when all IVs are valid; however, when horizontal pleiotropy is present, it may lead to biased inference. On the other hand, Egger regression is one of the most widely used methods robust to (uncorrelated) pleiotropy, but it suffers from loss of power. We propose a two-component mixture of regressions to combine and thus take advantage of both IVW and Egger regression; it is often both more efficient (i.e. higher powered) and more robust to pleiotropy (i.e. controlling type I error) than either IVW or Egger regression alone by accounting for both valid and invalid IVs respectively. We propose a model averaging approach and a novel data perturbation scheme to account for uncertainties in model/IV selection, leading to more robust statistical inference for finite samples. Through extensive simulations and applications to the GWAS summary data of 48 risk factor-disease pairs and 63 genetically uncorrelated trait pairs, we showcase that our proposed methods could often control type I error better while achieving much higher power than IVW and Egger regression (and sometimes than several other new/popular MR methods). We expect that our proposed methods will be a useful addition to the toolbox of Mendelian randomization for causal inference.

Since associations between complex diseases and common variants are typically weak, and approaches to genotyping rare variants (e.g. by next-generation resequencing) multiply, there is an urgent demand to develop powerful association tests that are able to detect disease associations with both common and rare variants. In this article we present such a test. It is based on data-adaptive modifications to a so-called Sum test originally proposed for common variants, which aims to strike a balance between utilizing information on multiple markers in linkage disequilibrium and reducing the cost of large degrees of freedom or of multiple testing adjustment. When applied to multiple common or rare variants in a candidate region, the proposed test is easy to use with 1 degree of freedom and without the need for multiple testing adjustment. We show that the proposed test has high power across a wide range of scenarios with either common or rare variants, or both. In particular, in some situations the proposed test performs better than several commonly used methods.