Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 20th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 17th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 7th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 15th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 15, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors have adequately addressed all issues raised.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Brenda Oppert, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

The Section Editor noted that Data Availability statement needs to have fuller information on the source dataset and how to download it.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· May 17, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The manuscript needs major revisions as stated by the referees. Please exhaustively address all issues raised.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

Based on the generalized Kendal’s tau theory, the authors proposed a non-parametric statistic Nonp-FAM to test for the association between multiple traits and multiple rare variants using a series of family trio data. The asymptotic distribution of the test statistic under the null hypothesis is given. Simulation studies and real data analysis are present to exhibit the advantage of the proposed method. I have the following comments. (1) Whether Nonp-FAM works if there exist common variants, and what adjustment should it do? (2) In the case of multiple traits, if we know some are important and some are not much important, how can you incorporate this prior knowledge into the method? (3) In equation (2) of the kernel function of two families, as the genotype of child depends heavily on his/her parents’, why the third term K(OG_i, OG_j) shares the same weight as the previous two terms? (4) In line 126, is the rank of Var(U|T) same or not for every replication in the simulation study? (The observed data should be different for each replicate). (5) Are CAST and SKAT in lines 134-135 applicable to family data? (6) If there exist father/mother-child pair data, can you utilize these in the proposed statistic? (7) In line 287, you claim the proposed method can correct the impact of population stratification. It is hard for the reader to find the numerical support in the simulation results.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The new analytical model proposed by the authors looks like it could solve the problems that low frequency SNPs have had in previous analyses. However, there are some problems with the validation design and the method validation is relatively crude.

Experimental design

1. Sample size: For the methods based on independent individuals, we set the sample size to 600. and for family data of trios, 200 independent families are considered. considered.

The selection of sample size in the article is based on a relatively small single sample size, which is in a small class in GWAS studies. With this sample size, the model described by the authors has a relatively ideal p-value. However, comparisons of models with different sample sizes should be done, such as 50:50... .300:300... .1000:1000... .20,000:20,000.
2. TDT analysis is the classical study regarding trios, and a comparison between the low frequency mutations in TDT analysis and the authors' method should be added.
3.The authors' model appears to be effective in a selected segment, but does it achieve efficacy in all of the genome-wide data. The results of the analysis in the genome-wide SNP data should be carried out.

Validity of the findings

The conclusions appear relatively reliable

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.