Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914375›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS.

Clément Chatelain, Guillermo Durand, Vincent Thuillier, Franck Augé

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clément ChatelainSANOFI R&D, Translational Sciences, Chilly Mazarin, 91385, France. clement.chatelain@sanofi.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7265-6410
Guillermo DurandLaboratoire de Probabilités et Modèles Aléatoires, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 4, place Jussieu, Paris Cedex 05, 75252, France.
Vincent ThuillierSANOFI R&D, Biostatistics & Programming, Chilly Mazarin, 91385, France.
Franck AugéSANOFI R&D, Translational Sciences, Chilly Mazarin, 91385, France.
Sanofi (France) · FRLaboratoire de Probabilités et Modèles Aléatoires · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPart 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.

resultsGBOOST, 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 6.10

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEpistasis, GeneticGenome-Wide Association StudyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAlgorithmsComputational BiologyData Interpretation, StatisticalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansEpistasisGenome-wide association studiesSimulation

Identifiers

PMID29914375
PMCPMC6006572
OpenAlexW2808449932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.