Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis

被引:54
作者
Shang, Junliang [1 ]
Zhang, Junying [1 ]
Sun, Yan [2 ]
Liu, Dan [1 ]
Ye, Daojun [1 ]
Yin, Yaling [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Xidian Univ, Sch Comp Sci & Technol, Xian 710071, Peoples R China
[2] Shannxi Peoples Fine Arts Publishing House, Xian 710003, Peoples R China
[3] Xian Econ & Financial Univ, Informat Sch, Xian 710100, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
MULTIFACTOR-DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION; GENE-GENE INTERACTIONS; ASSOCIATION; INFERENCE; POWER;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2105-12-475
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Background: Epistasis 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. Results: This 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. Conclusions: None 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.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]   The effect of single nucleotide polymorphism identification strategies on estimates of linkage disequilibrium [J].
Akey, JM ;
Zhang, K ;
Xiong, MM ;
Jin, L .
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2003, 20 (02) :232-242
[2]   A Bayesian multilocus association method: Allowing for higher-order interaction in association studies [J].
Albrechtsen, Anders ;
Castella, Sofie ;
Andersen, Gitte ;
Hansen, Torben ;
Pedersen, Oluf ;
Nielsen, Rasmus .
GENETICS, 2007, 176 (02) :1197-1208
[3]   A novel approach to simulate gene-environment interactions in complex diseases [J].
Amato, Roberto ;
Pinelli, Michele ;
D'Andrea, Daniel ;
Miele, Gennaro ;
Nicodemi, Mario ;
Raiconi, Giancarlo ;
Cocozza, Sergio .
BMC BIOINFORMATICS, 2010, 11
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1935, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Supplement 2: 248252, DOI DOI 10.2307/2983639
[5]   Association study designs for complex diseases [J].
Cardon, LR ;
Bell, JI .
NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS, 2001, 2 (02) :91-99
[6]  
Chen CC, 2011, IEEE ACM T COMPUT BI
[7]   Comparative analysis of methods for detecting interacting loci [J].
Chen, Li ;
Yu, Guoqiang ;
Langefeld, Carl D. ;
Miller, David J. ;
Guy, Richard T. ;
Raghuram, Jayaram ;
Yuan, Xiguo ;
Herrington, David M. ;
Wang, Yue .
BMC GENOMICS, 2011, 12
[8]  
Chen L, 2009, IEEE INT C BIO BIO W, P25
[9]   Detecting gene-gene interactions that underlie human diseases [J].
Cordell, Heather J. .
NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS, 2009, 10 (06) :392-404
[10]   Epistasis: what it means, what it doesn't mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans [J].
Cordell, HJ .
HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS, 2002, 11 (20) :2463-2468