Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2808719.2808758acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbcbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing the collective disease association of multiple genomic loci

Published:09 September 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) facilitate large-scale identification of genomic variants that are associated with complex traits. However, susceptibility loci identified by GWAS so far generally account for a limited fraction of the genotypic variation in patient populations. Predictive models based on identified loci also have modest success in risk assessment and therefore are of limited practical use. In this paper, we propose a new method to identify sets of loci that are collectively associated with a trait of interest. We call such sets of loci "population covering locus sets" (PoCos). The main contribution of the proposed approach is three-fold: 1)We consider all possible genotype models for each locus, thereby enabling identification of combinatorial relationships between multiple loci. 2) We use a network model to incorporate the functional relationships among genomic loci to drive the search for PoCos. 3) We develop a novel method to integrate the genotypes of multiple loci in a PoCo into a representative genotype to be used in risk assessment. We test the proposed framework in the context of risk assessment for two complex diseases, Psoriasis (PS) and Type 2Diabetes (T2D). Our results show that the proposed method significantly outperforms individual variant based risk assessment models.

References

  1. Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, and Yang J. Five years of gwas discovery. Am J Hum Genet., 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. E. Zeggini, LJ. 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
  3. 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
  4. Australia and New Zealand Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium (ANZgene). Genome-wide association study identifies new multiple sclerosis susceptibility loci on chromosomes 12 and 20. Nat Genet, 41, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Conde L., Bracci P. M., Richardson R., Montgomery S. B., and Skibola C. F. Integrating gwas and expression data for functional characterization of disease-associated snps: an application to follicular lymphoma. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Korn JM, Kuruvilla FG, McCarroll SA, Wysoker A, Nemesh J, Cawley S, and et al. Integrated genotype calling and association analysis of snps, common copy number polymorphisms and rare cnvs. Nature Gentic, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Manolio TA, Collins FS, and etc. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. B. Goldstein. Common genetic variation and human traits. N. Engl. J. Med, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. D. Segre, A. Deluna, and et al. Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism. Nature genetics, 37, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. K. E. Zerba, R. E. 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
  12. M. M. Carrasquillo, A. S. McCallion, E. G. Puffenberger, C. S. Kashuk, N. Nouri, and A. Chakravarti. Genome-wide association study and mouse model identify interaction between ret and ednrb pathways in hirschsprung disease. Nature Gentic, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Vawter MP1, Mamdani F, and Macciardi F. An integrative functional genomics approach for discovering biomarkers in schizophr. Brief Funct Genomics, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Wan X and et al. Predictive rule inference for epistatic interaction detection in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Gui, JH 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
  16. 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
  17. Gang Fang, Majda Haznadar, Wen Wang, Haoyu Yu, Michael Steinbach, Timothy R Church, William S Oetting, Brian Van Ness, and Vipin Kumar. High-order snp combinations associated with complex diseases: efficient discovery, statistical power and functional interactions. PloS one, 7(4):e33531, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Pierce BL and Ahsan H. Case-only genome-wide interaction study of disease risk. prognosis and treatment. Genet Epidemiol., 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaun M Purcell, Naomi R Wray, Jennifer L Stone, Peter M Visscher, Michael C O'Donovan, Patrick F Sullivan, Pamela Sklar, Douglas M Ruderfer, Andrew McQuillin, Derek W Morris, et al. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature, 460(7256):748--752, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium et al. Evidence for polygenic susceptibility to multiple sclerosis - the shape of things to come. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 86(4):621--625, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Matthew A Simonson, Amanda G Wills, Matthew C Keller, and Matthew B McQueen. Recent methods for polygenic analysis of genome-wide data implicate an important effect of common variants on cardiovascular disease risk. BMC medical genetics, 12(1):146, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Zhang Y. and Liu J. S. Bayesian inference of epistatic interactions in caseâĂŞcontrol studies. Nature Genetic, 39, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. S. E. Baranzini, N. W. Galwey, J. Wang, P. Khankhanian, and et al. Pathway and network-based analysis of genome-wide association studies in multiple sclerosis. Hum. Mol. Genet., 18:2078--2090, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Emily M., Mailund T., Hein J., Schauser L., and M. H. Schierup. Using biological networks to search for interacting loci in genome-wide association studies. European Journal of Human Genetics, 17, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yu Liu, Sean Maxwell, Tao Feng, Xiaofeng Zhu, Robert C Elston, Mehmet Koyutürk, and Mark R Chance. Gene, pathway and network frameworks to identify epistatic interactions of single nucleotide polymorphisms derived from gwas data. BMC systems biology, 6(Suppl 3):S15, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Marzieh Ayati and Mehmet Koyutürk. Prioritization of genomic locus pairs for testing epistasis. Proceedings of ACM-BCB, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. P. Jia, S. Zheng, J. Long, W. Zheng, and Z. Zhao. dmGWAS: dense module searching for genome-wide association studies in protein-protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics, 27:95--102, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Marzieh Ayati, Sinan Erten, and Mehmet Koyutürk. What do we learn from network-based analysis of genome-wide association data? Proceedings of Applications of Evolutionary Computation, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Holmans P, Green EK, Pahwa JS, Ferreira MA, and et al. Gene ontology analysis of gwa study data sets provides insights into the biology of bipolar disorder. Am J Hum Genet., 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lingjie Weng, Fabio Macciardi, Aravind Subramanian, Guia Guffanti, Steven G Potkin, Zhaoxia Yu, and Xiaohui Xie. Snp-based pathway enrichment analysis for genome-wide association studies. BMC Bioinformatics, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Chloé-Agathe Azencott, Dominik Grimm, Mahito Sugiyama, Yoshinobu Kawahara, and Karsten M Borgwardt. Efficient network-guided multi-locus association mapping with graph cuts. Bioinformatics, 29(13):i171--i179, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. W. Li, B. Hu, G. L. Li, X. Q. Zhao, B. Z. Xin, and et al. Heterozygote genotypes at rs2222823 and rs2811712 snp loci are associated with cerebral small vessel disease in han chinese population. CNS Neurosci. Ther., 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang K, Wang YY, Liu QJ, Wang H, Liu FF, Ma ZY, Gong YQ, and Li L. Two single nucleotide polymorphisms in ALOX15 are associated with risk of coronary artery disease in a chinese han population. Heart Vessels, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Huang R, Huang J, Cathcart H, Smith S, and Poduslo SE. Genetic variants in brain-derived neurotrophic factor associated with alzheimer's disease. J Med Genet, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Can Yang, Xiang Wan, Qiang Yang, Hong Xue, and Weichuan Yu. Identifying main effects and epistatic interactions from large-scale snp data via adaptive group lasso. BMC Bioinformatics, 11, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Salim A Chowdhury and Mehmet Koyutürk. Identification of coordinately dysregulated subnetworks in complex phenotypes. In Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, volume 15, pages 133--144. World Scientific, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. W. T. C. C. Consortium. Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Schaefer MH, Fontaine J-F, Vinayagam A, Porras P, Wanker EE, and et al. Hippie: Integrating protein interaction networks with experiment based quality scores. PLoS ONE, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. S. Purcell, B. Neale, K. Todd-Brown, L. Thomas, and et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. American journal of human genetics, 81, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. H. Lango, C. N. A Palmer, and et al. Assessing the combined impact of 18 common genetic variants of modest effect sizes on type 2 diabetes risk. Nature genetics, 57, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. C. S. Janipallian, M. V. Kumar, and et al. Analysis of 32 common susceptibility genetic variants and their combined effect in predicting risk of type 2 diabetes and related traits in indians. Diabetic Medicine, 29(1), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. T. J. Russell, L. M. Schultes, and et al. Histocompatibility (HLA) antigens associated with psoriasis. N. Engl. J. Med., 287, 1972.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. ENCODE Project Consortium. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project. Science, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Assessing the collective disease association of multiple genomic loci

        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