4.0 Review

Bayesian Models for Detecting Epistatic Interactions from Genetic Data

期刊

ANNALS OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 183-193

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2010.00621.x

关键词

Bayesian Methods; association mapping; epistasis; QTL

资金

  1. NIH [R01 HG004718-03, R01-HG02518]
  2. NCI [1U54CA149237]
  3. Washington Life Science Discovery Fund [3104672]
  4. NSF [DMS-0706989]
  5. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U54CA149237] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [R01HG004718, R01HG002518] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Current disease association studies are routinely conducted on a genome-wide scale, testing hundreds of thousands or millions of genetic markers. Besides detecting marginal associations of individual markers with the disease, it is also of interest to identify gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, which confer susceptibility to the disease risk. The astronomical number of possible combinations of markers and environmental factors, however, makes interaction mapping a daunting task both computationally and statistically. In this paper, we review and discuss a set of Bayesian partition methods developed recently for mapping single-nucleotide polymorphisms in case-control studies, their extension to quantitative traits, and further generalization to multiple traits. We use simulation and real data sets to demonstrate the performance of these methods, and we compare them with some existing interaction mapping algorithms. With the recent advance in high-throughput sequencing technologies, genome-wide measurements of epigenetic factor enrichment, structural variations, and transcription activities become available at the individual level. The tsunami of data creates more challenges for gene-gene interaction mapping, but at the same time provides new opportunities that, if utilized properly through sophisticated statistical means, can improve the power of mapping interactions at the genome scale.

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

4.0
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