Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29218884›Full record

ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2018

How powerful are summary-based methods for identifying expression-trait associations under different genetic architectures?

Yogasudha Veturi, Marylyn D Ritchie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Genes · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yogasudha VeturiBiomedical and Translational Informatics Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA, yveturi@geisinger.edu.
Marylyn D Ritchie

Funding

Pharmacogenomics of Statin TherapyP50GM115318 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RISCH, NEIL J. · 2015 to 2019
$14.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM115318
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have recently been employed as an approach that can draw upon the advantages of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and gene expression studies to identify genes associated with complex traits. Unlike standard GWAS, summary level data suffices for TWAS and offers improved statistical power. Two popular TWAS methods include either (a) imputing the cis genetic component of gene expression from smaller sized studies (using multi-SNP prediction or MP) into much larger effective sample sizes afforded by GWAS - TWAS-MP or (b) using summary-based Mendelian randomization - TWAS-SMR. Although these methods have been effective at detecting functional variants, it remains unclear how extensive variability in the genetic architecture of complex traits and diseases impacts TWAS results. Our goal was to investigate the different scenarios under which these methods yielded enough power to detect significant expression-trait associations. In this study, we conducted extensive simulations based on 6000 randomly chosen, unrelated Caucasian males from Geisinger's MyCode population to compare the power to detect cis expression-trait associations (within 500 kb of a gene) using the above-described approaches. To test TWAS across varying genetic backgrounds we simulated gene expression and phenotype using different quantitative trait loci per gene and cis-expression /trait heritability under genetic models that differentiate the effect of causality from that of pleiotropy. For each gene, on a training set ranging from 100 to 1000 individuals, we either (a) estimated regression coefficients with gene expression as the response using five different methods: LASSO, elastic net, Bayesian LASSO, Bayesian spike-slab, and Bayesian ridge regression or (b) performed eQTL analysis. We then sampled with replacement 50,000, 150,000, and 300,000 individuals respectively from the testing set of the remaining 5000 individuals and conducted GWAS on each set. Subsequently, we integrated the GWAS summary statistics derived from the testing set with the weights (or eQTLs) derived from the training set to identify expression-trait associations using (a) TWAS-MP (b) TWAS-SMR (c) eQTL-based GWAS, or (d) standalone GWAS. Finally, we examined the power to detect functionally relevant genes using the different approaches under the considered simulation scenarios. In general, we observed great similarities among TWAS-MP methods although the Bayesian methods resulted in improved power in comparison to LASSO and elastic net as the trait architecture grew more complex while training sample sizes and expression heritability remained small. Finally, we observed high power under causality but very low to moderate power under pleiotropy.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremComputational BiologyComputer SimulationDatabases, GeneticGene Expression ProfilingGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMachine LearningMaleModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID29218884
PMCPMC5785784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.