skip to main content
10.1145/2649387.2649449acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbcbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Prioritization of genomic locus pairs for testing epistasis

Published:20 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

In recent years, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have successfully identified loci that harbor genetic variants associated with complex diseases. However, susceptibility loci identified by GWAS so far generally account for a limited fraction of heritability in patient populations. More recently, there has been considerable attention on identifying epistatic interactions. However, the large number of pairs to be tested for epistasis poses significant challenges, in terms of both computational (run-time) and statistical (multiple hypothesis testing) considerations.

In this paper, we propose a new method to reduce the number of tests required to identify epistatic pairs of genomic loci. The key idea of the proposed algorithm is to reduce the data by identifying sets of loci that may be complementary in their association with the disease. Namely, we identify population covering locus sets (PoCos), i.e., sets of loci that harbor at least one susceptibility allele in samples with the phenotype of interest. Then we compute representative genotypes for PoCos, and assess the significance of the interactions between pairs of PoCos. We use the results of this assessment to prioritize pairs of loci to be tested for epistasis. We test the proposed method on two independent GWAS data sets of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). Our experimental results show that the proposed method reduces the number of hypotheses to be tested drastically, enabling efficient identification of more epistatic loci that are statistically significant. Moreover, some of the identified epistatic pairs of loci are reproducible between the two datasets. We also show that the proposed method outperforms an existing method for prioritization of locus pairs.

References

  1. B. Ahren. Islet G protein-coupled receptors as potential targets for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Australia and N. Z. M. S. G. C. (ANZgene). Genome-wide association study identifies new multiple sclerosis susceptibility loci on chromosomes 12 and 20. Nat Genet, 41, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. G. Bader and C. Hogue. W. T. C. C. consortium. genome-wide association study of CNVs in 16,000 cases of eight common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. H. Cordell. Epistasis: what it means, what it doesn't mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. Hum. Mol. Genet., 11(20), 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Erten, M. Ayati, Y. Liu, M. R. Chance, and M. Koyutürk. Algorithms for detecting complementary snps within a region of interest that are associated with diseases. pages 194--201, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Fisher. On the interpretation of X2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of p. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 85, 1922.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Goudey and et al. GWIS - model-free, fast and exhaustive search for epistatic interactions in case-control GWAS. BMC Genomic, 14(3), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Gudmundsson, P. Sulem, and et al. Genome-wide association study identifies a second prostate cancer susceptibility variant at 8q24. Nature genetics, 39, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Gui, J. Moore, and et al. A simple and computationally efficient approach to multifactor dimensionality reduction analysis of gene-gene interactions for quantitative traits. PLoS One, 8, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Lim, K. Hong, H. Jin, Y. Kim, H. Park, and B. Oh. Type 2 diabetes genetic association database manually curated for the study design and odds ratio. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Y. Liu, S. Maxwell, and et al. Gene, pathway and network frameworks to identify epistatic interactions of single nucleotide polymorphisms derived from gwas data. BMC Syst Biol, 3, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. D. Mailman, M. Feolo, Y. Jin, M. Kimura, K. Tryka, and et al. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nature genetics, 39, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Marchini, P. Donnelly, and et al. Genome-wide strategies for detecting multiple loci that influence complex diseases. Nature Genet., 37, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. N. MS. Chi-square test for normality. Proceedings of International Vilnius Conference on Probability Thepry and Mathematical. Statistics, 2, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. P. Nair, K. C. Duffin, and et al. Genome-wide scan reveals association of psoriasis with IL-23 and NF-kB pathways. Nature genetics, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Piriyapongsa and et al. iLOCi: a SNP interaction prioritization technique for detecting epistasis in genome-wide association studies. BMC Genomic, 13(7), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. N. Risch. Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium. Nature, 405, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Ritchie. Using biological knowledge to uncover the mystery in the search for epistasis in genome-wide association studies. Ann Hum Genet, 75, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. ritchie and et al. Multifactor-dimensionality reduction reveals high-order interactions among estrogen-metabolism genes in sporadic breast cancer. Hum. Genet., 69, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. Segre, A. Deluna, and et al. Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism. Nature genetics, 37, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S. T and et al. FastEpistasis: a high performance computing solution for quantitative trait epistasis. Bioinformatics, 26, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. N. Tiffin, E. Adie, F. Turner, and et al. Computational disease gene identification: a concert of methods prioritizes type 2 diabetes and obesity candidate genes. Nucleic Acids Res., 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. X. Wan and et al. BOOST: A fast approach to detecting gene-gene interactions in genome-wide case-constrol studies. Am J Hum Genet, 87(3), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. C. Yang, Z. He, and et al. SNPHarvester: a filtering-based approach for detecting epistatic interactions in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics, 25, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. E. Zeggini, L. Scott, and et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data and large-scale replication identifies additional susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. Nature genetics, 40, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. K. Zerba, R. Ferrell, and et al. Complex adaptive systems and human health: the influence of common genotypes of the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene polymorphism and age on the relational order within a field of lipid metabolism traits. Hum. genetics, 107, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. X. Zhang, S. Huang, and et al. Team: efficient two-locus epistasis tests in human genome-wide association study. Bioinformatics, 26, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Prioritization of genomic locus pairs for testing epistasis

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          BCB '14: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics
          September 2014
          851 pages
          ISBN:9781450328944
          DOI:10.1145/2649387
          • General Chairs:
          • Pierre Baldi,
          • Wei Wang

          Copyright © 2014 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 September 2014

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate254of885submissions,29%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader