Accuracy and differential bias in copy number measurement of CCL3L1 in association studies with three auto-immune disorders
1 Centre for Genetics and Genomics and School of Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
2 Division of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, King's College London School of Medicine, 8th Floor Guy's Tower, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK
3 Department of Dermatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Citation and License
BMC Genomics 2011, 12:418 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-12-418Published: 18 August 2011
Copy number variation (CNV) contributes to the variation observed between individuals and can influence human disease progression, but the accurate measurement of individual copy numbers is technically challenging. In the work presented here we describe a modification to a previously described paralogue ratio test (PRT) method for genotyping the CCL3L1/CCL4L1 copy variable region, which we use to ascertain CCL3L1/CCL4L1 copy number in 1581 European samples. As the products of CCL3L1 and CCL4L1 potentially play a role in autoimmunity we performed case control association studies with Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis clinical cohorts.
We evaluate the PRT methodology used, paying particular attention to accuracy and precision, and highlight the problems of differential bias in copy number measurements. Our PRT methods for measuring copy number were of sufficient precision to detect very slight but systematic differential bias between results from case and control DNA samples in one study. We find no evidence for an association between CCL3L1 copy number and Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis.
Differential bias of this small magnitude, but applied systematically across large numbers of samples, would create a serious risk of false positive associations in copy number, if measured using methods of lower precision, or methods relying on single uncorroborated measurements. In this study the small differential bias detected by PRT in one sample set was resolved by a simple pre-treatment by restriction enzyme digestion.