Peer-Review Record
XCMAX4: A Robust X Chromosomal Genetic Association Test Accounting for Covariates
Genes 2022, 13(5), 847; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050847
by
Youpeng Su †
, Jing Hu †, Ping Yin, Hongwei Jiang, Siyi Chen, Mengyi Dai, Ziwei Chen and Peng Wang *
, Jing Hu †, Ping Yin, Hongwei Jiang, Siyi Chen, Mengyi Dai, Ziwei Chen and Peng Wang *Reviewer 1:
Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Genes 2022, 13(5), 847; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050847
Submission received: 12 April 2022
/
Revised: 30 April 2022
/
Accepted: 5 May 2022
/
Published: 9 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Statistical Genetics in Human Diseases)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The unified robust test for X chromosomal genetic variants presented in this paper is interesting and quite useful. I just have a few comments that can improve and strengthen the paper.
- Providing benchmarking results for computational resource requirements for the proposed method, and comparing with a few existing methods can be useful to evaluate its practical applicability.
- Page 5, model (2), why not use all four types of G scores in the model? Why only use two G scores? If my intuition is correct, then using all four types of G scores allows one to calculate all the marginal correlations from one model only.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper on a novel association test for SNPs on X-chromosome. I have some questions:
- The size of the test is only evaluated at one significance level (10^{-4}). It would be more convincing to present the sizes at multiple significance levels.
- Table 2 is confusing. It presents the type I error rate, but it is not clear what the denominator is. For example, does 1.03 means 1.03 errors per 100 tests or 10,000 tests?
- When evaluating power, the authors uses only one beta value (0.15). It would be helpful to use multiple beta values to see how the power changes with beta.
Two lines above Table 2, "litter impact" should be "little impact".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a revision. The authors have addressed my previous concerns sufficiently.
