Cargando…

A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics

Cytotoxicity assays of immortalized lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) represent a promising new in vitro approach in pharmacogenomics research. However, previous studies employing LCLs in gene mapping have used simple association methods, which may not adequately capture the true differences in non-l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Chad, Havener, Tammy M., Everitt, Lorraine, McLeod, Howard, Motsinger-Reif, Alison A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Research Foundation 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22303380
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2011.00086
_version_ 1782222396513583104
author Brown, Chad
Havener, Tammy M.
Everitt, Lorraine
McLeod, Howard
Motsinger-Reif, Alison A.
author_facet Brown, Chad
Havener, Tammy M.
Everitt, Lorraine
McLeod, Howard
Motsinger-Reif, Alison A.
author_sort Brown, Chad
collection PubMed
description Cytotoxicity assays of immortalized lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) represent a promising new in vitro approach in pharmacogenomics research. However, previous studies employing LCLs in gene mapping have used simple association methods, which may not adequately capture the true differences in non-linear response profiles between genotypes. Two common approaches summarize each dose-response curve with either the IC50 or the slope parameter estimates from a hill slope fit and treat these estimates as the response in a linear model. The current study investigates these two methods, as well as four novel methods, and compares their power to detect differences between the response profiles of genotypes under a variety of different alternatives. The four novel methods include two methods that summarize each dose-response by its area under the curve, one method based off of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) design, and one method that compares hill slope fits for all individuals of each genotype. The power of each method was found to depend not only on the choice of alternative, but also on the choice for the set of dosages used in cytotoxicity measurements. The ANOVA-based method was found to be the most robust across alternatives and dosage sets for power in detecting differences between genotypes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3268638
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Frontiers Research Foundation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32686382012-02-02 A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics Brown, Chad Havener, Tammy M. Everitt, Lorraine McLeod, Howard Motsinger-Reif, Alison A. Front Genet Genetics Cytotoxicity assays of immortalized lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) represent a promising new in vitro approach in pharmacogenomics research. However, previous studies employing LCLs in gene mapping have used simple association methods, which may not adequately capture the true differences in non-linear response profiles between genotypes. Two common approaches summarize each dose-response curve with either the IC50 or the slope parameter estimates from a hill slope fit and treat these estimates as the response in a linear model. The current study investigates these two methods, as well as four novel methods, and compares their power to detect differences between the response profiles of genotypes under a variety of different alternatives. The four novel methods include two methods that summarize each dose-response by its area under the curve, one method based off of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) design, and one method that compares hill slope fits for all individuals of each genotype. The power of each method was found to depend not only on the choice of alternative, but also on the choice for the set of dosages used in cytotoxicity measurements. The ANOVA-based method was found to be the most robust across alternatives and dosage sets for power in detecting differences between genotypes. Frontiers Research Foundation 2011-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3268638/ /pubmed/22303380 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2011.00086 Text en Copyright © 2011 Brown, Havener, Everitt, McLeod and Motsinger-Reif. http://www.frontiersin.org/licenseagreement This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.
spellingShingle Genetics
Brown, Chad
Havener, Tammy M.
Everitt, Lorraine
McLeod, Howard
Motsinger-Reif, Alison A.
A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics
title A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics
title_full A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics
title_fullStr A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics
title_short A Comparison of Association Methods for Cytotoxicity Mapping in Pharmacogenomics
title_sort comparison of association methods for cytotoxicity mapping in pharmacogenomics
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22303380
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2011.00086
work_keys_str_mv AT brownchad acomparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT havenertammym acomparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT everittlorraine acomparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT mcleodhoward acomparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT motsingerreifalisona acomparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT brownchad comparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT havenertammym comparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT everittlorraine comparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT mcleodhoward comparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics
AT motsingerreifalisona comparisonofassociationmethodsforcytotoxicitymappinginpharmacogenomics