Genetic Heterogeneity of Self-Reported Ancestry Groups in an Admixed Brazilian Population

Background: Population stratification is the main source of spurious results and poor reproducibility in genetic association findings. Population heterogeneity can be controlled for by grouping individuals in ethnic clusters; however, in admixed populations, there is evidence that such proxies do no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of epidemiology 2011, Vol.21 (4), p.240-245
Main Authors: Lins, Tulio C, Vieira, Rodrigo G, Abreu, Breno S, Gentil, Paulo, Moreno-Lima, Ricardo, Oliveira, Ricardo J, Pereira, Rinaldo W
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ethnicity
Genealogy
Genetics
Genotype & phenotype
Minority & ethnic groups
Original
Population genetics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Population stratification is the main source of spurious results and poor reproducibility in genetic association findings. Population heterogeneity can be controlled for by grouping individuals in ethnic clusters; however, in admixed populations, there is evidence that such proxies do not provide efficient stratification control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation of self-reported with genetic ancestry and the statistical risk of grouping an admixed sample based on self-reported ancestry. Methods: A questionnaire that included an item on self-reported ancestry was completed by 189 female volunteers from an admixed Brazilian population. Individual genetic ancestry was then determined by genotyping ancestry informative markers. Results: Self-reported ancestry was classified as white, intermediate, and black. The mean difference among self-reported groups was significant for European and African, but not Amerindian, genetic ancestry. Pairwise fixation index analysis revealed a significant difference among groups. However, the increase in the chance of type 1 error was estimated to be 14%. Conclusions: Self-reporting of ancestry was not an appropriate methodology to cluster groups in a Brazilian population, due to high variance at the individual level. Ancestry informative markers are more useful for quantitative measurement of biological ancestry. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
ISSN:0917-5040
1349-9092
DOI:10.2188/jea.JE20100164