Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2808719.2808721acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbcbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

High-speed westfall-young permutation procedure for genome-wide association studies

Published:09 September 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) are widely used to investigate statistically significant associations between diseases and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to identify causal factors of diseases. In GWAS, statistical significance of more than one million SNPs have been recently assessed, but in many case, no associations are found because of the application of conservative multiple testing corrections, such as Bonferroni correction. While more sensitive methods, such as Westfall-Young permutation procedure (WY), would relate more SNPs with diseases, its extremely long computational time has prohibited from the application of WY to GWAS. We introduce an algorithm to accelerate WY, named High-speed Westfall-Young permutation procedure (HWY). HWY utilizes three techniques to make WY computationally practical. First, P-value calculations for SNPs that cannot affect the adjusted significance level are pruned. Second, a lookup table of P-values is used to avoid frequent duplicate calculations. Finally, computations are parallelized using a GPGPU. HWY was 619 times faster than WY and more than 122 times faster than PLINK, a widely used GWAS software, and analyzed a dataset contained one million SNPs and one thousand individuals in approximately two hours. Re-analysis of existing GWAS datasets with HWY may uncover additional hidden SNP-trait associations.

References

  1. S. Atwell, Y. S. Huang, B. J. Vilhjálmsson, et al. Genome-wide association study of 107 phenotypes in Arabidopsis thaliana inbred lines. Nature, 465(7298):627--631, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B, 57(1):289--300, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Y. Benjamini and D. Yekutieli. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat., 29(4):1165--1188, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. C. E. Bonferroni. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze, 8:3--62, 1936.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. V. G. Cheung, R. S. Spielman, K. G. Ewens, et al. Mapping determinants of human gene expression by regional and genome-wide association. Nature, 437(7063):1365--1369, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Y. Ge, S. Dudoit, and T. P. Speed. Resampling-based multiple testing for microarray data analysis. Test, 12(1):1--77, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. L. A. Hindorff, P. Sethupathy, H. A. Junkins, et al. Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits. PNAS, 106(23):9362--9367, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. S. Holm. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat., 6(2):65--70, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. X. Huang and B. Han. Natural variations and genome-wide association studies in crop plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 65:531--551, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M. I. McCarthy, G. R. Abecasis, and L. R. o. Cardon. Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(5):356--369, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. N. Meinshausen, M. H. Maathuis, and P. Bühlmann. Asymptotic optimality of the WestfallâĂŞ Young permutation procedure for multiple testing under dependence. Ann Stat., 39(6):3369--3391, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. S. Purcell, B. Neale, K. Todd-Brown, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. American journal of human genetics, 81(3):559--75, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. G. D. Ruxton and M. Neuhäuser. Good practice in testing for an association in contingency tables. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 64(9):1505--1513, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. A. Terada, M. Okada-Hatakeyama, K. Tsuda, et al. Statistical significance of combinatorial regulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA., 110(32):12996--13001, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Terada, K. Tsuda, and J. Sese. Fast Westfall-Young Permutation Procedure for Combinatorial Regulation Discovery. In IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. The International HapMap Consortium. A haplotype map of the human genome. Nature, 437(7063):1299--320, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Z. Šidák. Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc., 62(318):626--633, 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. A. Webster, J. R. Gibbs, J. Clarke, et al. Genetic control of human brain transcript expression in Alzheimer disease. American journal of human genetics, 84(4):445--58, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Welter, J. MacArthur, J. Morales, et al. The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucleic acids research, 42(Database issue):D1001--6, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. H. Westfall and S. S. Young. Resampling-based multiple testing: Examples and methods for p-value adjustment. Wiley, New York, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Winkelmann, B. Schormair, P. Lichtner, et al. Genome-wide association study of restless legs syndrome identifies common variants in three genomic regions. Nat Genet., 39(8):1000--1006, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. G. Yang, W. Jiang, Q. Yang, et al. PBOOST: A GPU based tool for parallel permutation tests in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. X. Zhang, F. Zou, and W. Wang. FastChi: an efficient algorithm for analyzing gene-gene interactions. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, pages 528--39, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. High-speed westfall-young permutation procedure for genome-wide association studies

            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 '15: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics
              September 2015
              683 pages
              ISBN:9781450338530
              DOI:10.1145/2808719

              Copyright © 2015 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: 9 September 2015

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              BCB '15 Paper Acceptance Rate48of141submissions,34%Overall Acceptance Rate254of885submissions,29%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader