ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- GEP-EpiSeeker: a gene expression programming-based method for epistatic interaction detection in genome-wide association studies.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Performance of model-based multifactor dimensionality reduction methods for epistasis detection by controlling population structure.BioData mining · 2021Article
- VariantSpark: Cloud-based machine learning for association study of complex phenotype and large-scale genomic data.GigaScience · 2020Article
- Toxo: a library for calculating penetrance tables of high-order epistasis models.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- SAMA: A Fast Self-Adaptive Memetic Algorithm for Detecting SNP-SNP Interactions Associated with Disease.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Identifying Cancer genes by combining two-rounds RWR based on multiple biological data.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Self-Adjusting Ant Colony Optimization Based on Information Entropy for Detecting Epistatic Interactions.Genes · 2019Article
- The search for gene-gene interactions in genome-wide association studies: challenges in abundance of methods, practical considerations, and biological interpretation.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Functional regression method for whole genome eQTL epistasis analysis with sequencing data.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- KNN-MDR: a learning approach for improving interactions mapping performances in genome wide association studies.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- An Exploration of Gene-Gene Interactions and Their Effects on Hypertension.International journal of genomics · 2017Article
- epiACO - a method for identifying epistasis based on ant Colony optimization algorithm.BioData mining · 2017Article
- CINOEDV: a co-information based method for detecting and visualizing n-order epistatic interactions.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- FHSA-SED: Two-Locus Model Detection for Genome-Wide Association Study with Harmony Search Algorithm.PloS one · 2016Article
- Confronting the missing epistasis problem: on the reproducibility of gene-gene interactions.Human genetics · 2015Article
- An efficiency analysis of high-order combinations of gene-gene interactions using multifactor-dimensionality reduction.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- An Improved Opposition-Based Learning Particle Swarm Optimization for the Detection of SNP-SNP Interactions.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Detecting epistasis in human complex traits.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2014Review
- Stability SCAD: a powerful approach to detect interactions in large-scale genomic study.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Additive, epistatic, and environmental effects through the lens of expression variability QTL in a twin cohort.Genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpistasis 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.
resultsThis 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.
conclusionsNone 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.