Penalized Multimarkervs.Single-Marker Regression Methods for Genome-Wide Association Studies of Quantitative Traits
Author(s) -
Hui Yi,
Patrick Breheny,
Netsanet Imam,
Yongmei Liu,
Ina Hoeschele
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
genetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.792
H-Index - 246
eISSN - 1943-2631
pISSN - 0016-6731
DOI - 10.1534/genetics.114.167817
Subject(s) - biology , genetics , genome wide association study , genetic association , regression , association (psychology) , computational biology , quantitative trait locus , phenotype , single nucleotide polymorphism , genotype , gene , statistics , mathematics , philosophy , epistemology
The data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in humans are still predominantly analyzed using single-marker association methods. As an alternative to single-marker analysis (SMA), all or subsets of markers can be tested simultaneously. This approach requires a form of penalized regression (PR) as the number of SNPs is much larger than the sample size. Here we review PR methods in the context of GWAS, extend them to perform penalty parameter and SNP selection by false discovery rate (FDR) control, and assess their performance in comparison with SMA. PR methods were compared with SMA, using realistically simulated GWAS data with a continuous phenotype and real data. Based on these comparisons our analytic FDR criterion may currently be the best approach to SNP selection using PR for GWAS. We found that PR with FDR control provides substantially more power than SMA with genome-wide type-I error control but somewhat less power than SMA with Benjamini-Hochberg FDR control (SMA-BH). PR with FDR-based penalty parameter selection controlled the FDR somewhat conservatively while SMA-BH may not achieve FDR control in all situations. Differences among PR methods seem quite small when the focus is on SNP selection with FDR control. Incorporating linkage disequilibrium into the penalization by adapting penalties developed for covariates measured on graphs can improve power but also generate more false positives or wider regions for follow-up. We recommend the elastic net with a mixing weight for the Lasso penalty near 0.5 as the best method.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom