4.7 Article

PCA-based GRS analysis enhances the effectiveness for genetic correlation detection

期刊

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 2291-2298

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bby075

关键词

bioinformatics; principal component analysis; genetic risk score; correlation analysis; complex diseases

资金

  1. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [81472925, 81673112]
  2. Key projects of international cooperation among governments in scientific and technological innovation [2016YFE0119100]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01AR057049, R01AR059781, P20 GM109036, R01MH107354, R01MH104680, R01GM109068, AR069055, U19 AG055373]
  4. Edward G. Schlieder Endowment fund
  5. Tsai and Kung endowment fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic risk score (GRS, also known as polygenic risk score) analysis is an increasingly popular method for exploring genetic architectures and relationships of complex diseases. However, complex diseases are usually measured by multiple correlated phenotypes. Analyzing each disease phenotype individually is likely to reduce statistical power due to multiple testing correction. In order to conquer the disadvantage, we proposed a principal component analysis (PCA)-based GRS analysis approach. Extensive simulation studies were conducted to compare the performance of PCA-based GRS analysis and traditional GRS analysis approach. Simulation results observed significantly improved performance of PCA-based GRS analysis compared to traditional GRS analysis under various scenarios. For the sake of verification, we also applied both PCA-based GRS analysis and traditional GRS analysis to a real Caucasian genome-wide association study (GWAS) data of bone geometry. Real data analysis results further confirmed the improved performance of PCA-based GRS analysis. Given that GWAS have flourished in the past decades, our approach may help researchers to explore the genetic architectures and relationships of complex diseases or traits.

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

4.7
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