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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |