Abstract
Performing a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with a binary phenotype using family data is a challenging task. Using linear mixed effects models is typically unsuitable for binary traits, and numerical approximations of the likelihood function may not work well with rare genetic variants with small counts. Additionally, imbalance in the case-control ratios poses challenges as traditional statistical methods such as the Score test or Wald test perform poorly in this setting. In the last couple of years, several methods have been proposed to better approximate the likelihood function of a mixed effects logistic regression model that uses Saddle Point Approximation (SPA). SPA adjustment has recently been implemented in multiple software, including GENESIS, SAIGE, REGENIE and fastGWA-GLMM: four increasingly popular tools to perform GWAS of binary traits. We compare Score and SPA tests using real family data to evaluate computational efficiency and the agreement of the results. Additionally, we compare various ways to adjust for family relatedness, such as sparse and full genetic relationship matrices (GRM) and polygenic effect estimates. We use the New England Centenarian Study imputed genotype data and the Long Life Family Study whole-genome sequencing data and the binary phenotype of human extreme longevity to compare the agreement of the results and tools' computational performance. The evaluation suggests that REGENIE might not be a good choice when analyzing correlated data of a small size. fastGWA-GLMM is the most computationally efficient compared to the other three tools, but it appears to be overly conservative when applied to family-based data. GENESIS, SAIGE and fastGWA-GLMM produced similar, although not identical, results, with SPA adjustment performing better than Score tests. Our evaluation also demonstrates the importance of adjusting by full GRM in highly correlated datasets when using GENESIS or SAIGE.