4.5 Article

A powerful and efficient two-stage method for detecting gene-to-gene interactions in GWAS

期刊

BIOSTATISTICS
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 477-494

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxw060

关键词

Genetic interactions; Epistasis; Two-stage testing; Case-control design; Parkinson's disease

资金

  1. Project 3.7.3 (Statistical Genetics) of the Center for Medical Systems Biology of the Netherlands Genomics Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For over a decade functional gene-to-gene interaction (epistasis) has been suspected to be a determinant in the missing heritability of complex traits. However, searching for epistasis on the genome-wide scale has been challenging due to the prohibitively large number of tests which result in a serious loss of statistical power as well as computational challenges. In this article, we propose a two-stage method applicable to existing case-control data sets, which aims to lessen both of these problems by pre-assessing whether a candidate pair of genetic loci is involved in epistasis before it is actually tested for interaction with respect to a complex phenotype. The pre-assessment is based on a two-locus genotype independence test performed in the sample of cases. Only the pairs of loci that exhibit non-equilibrium frequencies are analyzed via a logistic regression score test, thereby reducing the multiple testing burden. Since only the computationally simple independence tests are performed for all pairs of loci while the more demanding score tests are restricted to the most promising pairs, genome-wide association study (GWAS) for epistasis becomes feasible. By design our method provides strong control of the type I error. Its favourable power properties especially under the practically relevant misspecification of the interaction model are illustrated. Ready-to-use software is available. Using the method we analyzed Parkinson's disease in four cohorts and identified possible interactions within several SNP pairs in multiple cohorts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据