Dataset Information

Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Part of the missing heritability in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) is expected to be explained by interactions between genetic variants, also called epistasis. Various statistical methods have been developed to detect epistasis in case-control GWAS. These methods face major statistical challenges due to the number of tests required, the complexity of the Linkage Disequilibrium (LD) structure, and the lack of consensus regarding the definition of epistasis. Their limited impact in terms of uncovering new biological knowledge might be explained in part by the limited amount of experimental data available to validate their statistical performances in a realistic GWAS context. In this paper, we introduce a simulation pipeline for generating real scale GWAS data, including epistasis and realistic LD structure. We evaluate five exhaustive bivariate interaction methods, fastepi, GBOOST, SHEsisEpi, DSS, and IndOR. Two hundred thirty four different disease scenarios are considered in extensive simulations. We report the performances of each method in terms of false positive rate control, power, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and computation time using a GPU. Finally we compare the result of each methods on a real GWAS of type 2 diabetes from the Welcome Trust Case Control Consortium.

Results

GBOOST, SHEsisEpi and DSS allow a satisfactory control of the false positive rate. fastepi and IndOR present an increase in false positive rate in presence of LD between causal SNPs, with our definition of epistasis. DSS performs best in terms of power and AUC in most scenarios with no or weak LD between causal SNPs. All methods can exhaustively analyze a GWAS with 6.10⁵ SNPs and 15,000 samples in a couple of hours using a GPU.

Conclusion

This study confirms that computation time is no longer a limiting factor for performing an exhaustive search of epistasis in large GWAS. For this task, using DSS on SNP pairs with limited LD seems to be a good strategy to achieve the best statistical performance. A combination approach using both DSS and GBOOST is supported by the simulation results and the analysis of the WTCCC dataset demonstrated that this approach can detect distinct genes in epistasis. Finally, weak epistasis between common variants will be detectable with existing methods when GWAS of a few tens of thousands cases and controls are available.

SUBMITTER: Chatelain C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6006572 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS.

Chatelain Clément C Durand Guillermo G Thuillier Vincent V Augé Franck F

BMC bioinformatics 20180618 1

<h4>Background</h4>Part of the missing heritability in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) is expected to be explained by interactions between genetic variants, also called epistasis. Various statistical methods have been developed to detect epistasis in case-control GWAS. These methods face major statistical challenges due to the number of tests required, the complexity of the Linkage Disequilibrium (LD) structure, and the lack of consensus regarding the definition of epistasis. Their limite ...[more]

PMID: 29914375

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Epistasis is recognized fundamentally important for understanding the mechanism of disease-causing genetic variation. Though many novel methods for detecting epistasis have been proposed, few studies focus on their comparison. Undertaking a comprehensive comparison study is an urgent task and a pathway of the methods to real applications. RESULTS: This paper aims at a comparison study of epistasis detection methods through applying related software packages on datasets. For this purpose, we categorize methods according to their search strategies, and select five representative methods (TEAM, BOOST, SNPRuler, AntEpiSeeker and epiMODE) originating from different underlying techniques for comparison. The methods are tested on simulated datasets with different size, various epistasis models, and with/without noise. The types of noise include missing data, genotyping error and phenocopy. Performance is evaluated by detection power (three forms are introduced), robustness, sensitivity and computational complexity. CONCLUSIONS: None of selected methods is perfect in all scenarios and each has its own merits and limitations. In terms of detection power, AntEpiSeeker performs best on detecting epistasis displaying marginal effects (eME) and BOOST performs best on identifying epistasis displaying no marginal effects (eNME). In terms of robustness, AntEpiSeeker is robust to all types of noise on eME models, BOOST is robust to genotyping error and phenocopy on eNME models, and SNPRuler is robust to phenocopy on eME models and missing data on eNME models. In terms of sensitivity, AntEpiSeeker is the winner on eME models and both SNPRuler and BOOST perform well on eNME models. In terms of computational complexity, BOOST is the fastest among the methods. In terms of overall performance, AntEpiSeeker and BOOST are recommended as the efficient and effective methods. This comparison study may provide guidelines for applying the methods and further clues for epistasis detection.

Project description:Episodic memory function has been shown to depend critically on the hippocampus. This region is made up of a number of subfields, which differ in both cytoarchitectural features and functional roles in the mature brain. Recent neuroimaging work in children and adolescents has suggested that these regions may undergo different developmental trajectories-a fact that has important implications for how we think about learning and memory processes in these populations. Despite the growing research interest in hippocampal structure and function at the subfield level in healthy young adults, comparatively fewer studies have been carried out looking at subfield development. One barrier to studying these questions has been that manual segmentation of hippocampal subfields-considered by many to be the best available approach for defining these regions-is laborious and can be infeasible for large cross-sectional or longitudinal studies of cognitive development. Moreover, manual segmentation requires some subjectivity and is not impervious to bias or error. In a developmental sample of individuals spanning 6-30 years, we assessed the degree to which two semi-automated segmentation approaches-one approach based on Automated Segmentation of Hippocampal Subfields (ASHS) and another utilizing Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs)-approximated manual subfield delineation on each individual by a single expert rater. Our main question was whether performance varied as a function of age group. Across several quantitative metrics, we found negligible differences in subfield validity across the child, adolescent, and adult age groups, suggesting that these methods can be reliably applied to developmental studies. We conclude that ASHS outperforms ANTs overall and is thus preferable for analyses carried out in individual subject space. However, we underscore that ANTs is also acceptable and may be well-suited for analyses requiring normalization to a single group template (e.g., voxelwise analyses across a wide age range). Previous work has supported the use of such methods in healthy young adults, as well as several special populations such as older adults and those suffering from mild cognitive impairment. Our results extend these previous findings to show that ASHS and ANTs can also be used in pediatric populations as young as six.

Dataset Information

Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS.

Background

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets