Cargando…

Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis

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 tas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shang, Junliang, Zhang, Junying, Sun, Yan, Liu, Dan, Ye, Daojun, Yin, Yaling
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3259123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22172045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-475
_version_ 1782221348856135680
author Shang, Junliang
Zhang, Junying
Sun, Yan
Liu, Dan
Ye, Daojun
Yin, Yaling
author_facet Shang, Junliang
Zhang, Junying
Sun, Yan
Liu, Dan
Ye, Daojun
Yin, Yaling
author_sort Shang, Junliang
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3259123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32591232012-01-18 Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis Shang, Junliang Zhang, Junying Sun, Yan Liu, Dan Ye, Daojun Yin, Yaling BMC Bioinformatics Methodology Article 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. BioMed Central 2011-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3259123/ /pubmed/22172045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-475 Text en Copyright ©2011 Shang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Shang, Junliang
Zhang, Junying
Sun, Yan
Liu, Dan
Ye, Daojun
Yin, Yaling
Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
title Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
title_full Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
title_fullStr Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
title_full_unstemmed Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
title_short Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
title_sort performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3259123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22172045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-475
work_keys_str_mv AT shangjunliang performanceanalysisofnovelmethodsfordetectingepistasis
AT zhangjunying performanceanalysisofnovelmethodsfordetectingepistasis
AT sunyan performanceanalysisofnovelmethodsfordetectingepistasis
AT liudan performanceanalysisofnovelmethodsfordetectingepistasis
AT yedaojun performanceanalysisofnovelmethodsfordetectingepistasis
AT yinyaling performanceanalysisofnovelmethodsfordetectingepistasis