Cargando…

Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering

Gene–gene interactions may contribute to the genetic variation underlying complex traits but have not always been taken fully into account. Statistical analyses that consider gene–gene interaction may increase the power of detecting associations, especially for low-marginal-effect markers, and may e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Xiangqing, Lu, Qing, Mukherjee, Shubhabrata, Crane, Paul K., Elston, Robert, Ritchie, Marylyn D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24817878
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00106
_version_ 1782314902112698368
author Sun, Xiangqing
Lu, Qing
Mukherjee, Shubhabrata
Crane, Paul K.
Elston, Robert
Ritchie, Marylyn D.
author_facet Sun, Xiangqing
Lu, Qing
Mukherjee, Shubhabrata
Crane, Paul K.
Elston, Robert
Ritchie, Marylyn D.
author_sort Sun, Xiangqing
collection PubMed
description Gene–gene interactions may contribute to the genetic variation underlying complex traits but have not always been taken fully into account. Statistical analyses that consider gene–gene interaction may increase the power of detecting associations, especially for low-marginal-effect markers, and may explain in part the “missing heritability.” Detecting pair-wise and higher-order interactions genome-wide requires enormous computational power. Filtering pipelines increase the computational speed by limiting the number of tests performed. We summarize existing filtering approaches to detect epistasis, after distinguishing the purposes that lead us to search for epistasis. Statistical filtering includes quality control on the basis of single marker statistics to avoid the analysis of bad and least informative data, and limits the search space for finding interactions. Biological filtering includes targeting specific pathways, integrating various databases based on known biological and metabolic pathways, gene function ontology and protein–protein interactions. It is increasingly possible to target single-nucleotide polymorphisms that have defined functions on gene expression, though not belonging to protein-coding genes. Filtering can improve the power of an interaction association study, but also increases the chance of missing important findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4012196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40121962014-05-09 Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering Sun, Xiangqing Lu, Qing Mukherjee, Shubhabrata Crane, Paul K. Elston, Robert Ritchie, Marylyn D. Front Genet Genetics Gene–gene interactions may contribute to the genetic variation underlying complex traits but have not always been taken fully into account. Statistical analyses that consider gene–gene interaction may increase the power of detecting associations, especially for low-marginal-effect markers, and may explain in part the “missing heritability.” Detecting pair-wise and higher-order interactions genome-wide requires enormous computational power. Filtering pipelines increase the computational speed by limiting the number of tests performed. We summarize existing filtering approaches to detect epistasis, after distinguishing the purposes that lead us to search for epistasis. Statistical filtering includes quality control on the basis of single marker statistics to avoid the analysis of bad and least informative data, and limits the search space for finding interactions. Biological filtering includes targeting specific pathways, integrating various databases based on known biological and metabolic pathways, gene function ontology and protein–protein interactions. It is increasingly possible to target single-nucleotide polymorphisms that have defined functions on gene expression, though not belonging to protein-coding genes. Filtering can improve the power of an interaction association study, but also increases the chance of missing important findings. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4012196/ /pubmed/24817878 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00106 Text en Copyright © 2014 Sun, Lu, Mukherjee, Crane, Elston and Ritchie. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Genetics
Sun, Xiangqing
Lu, Qing
Mukherjee, Shubhabrata
Crane, Paul K.
Elston, Robert
Ritchie, Marylyn D.
Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
title Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
title_full Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
title_fullStr Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
title_full_unstemmed Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
title_short Analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
title_sort analysis pipeline for the epistasis search – statistical versus biological filtering
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24817878
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00106
work_keys_str_mv AT sunxiangqing analysispipelinefortheepistasissearchstatisticalversusbiologicalfiltering
AT luqing analysispipelinefortheepistasissearchstatisticalversusbiologicalfiltering
AT mukherjeeshubhabrata analysispipelinefortheepistasissearchstatisticalversusbiologicalfiltering
AT cranepaulk analysispipelinefortheepistasissearchstatisticalversusbiologicalfiltering
AT elstonrobert analysispipelinefortheepistasissearchstatisticalversusbiologicalfiltering
AT ritchiemarylynd analysispipelinefortheepistasissearchstatisticalversusbiologicalfiltering