Premium
Joint Effect of Unlinked Genotypes: Application to Type 2 Diabetes in the EPIC‐Potsdam Case‐Cohort Study
Author(s) -
Knüppel Sven,
Meidtner Karina,
Arregui Maria,
Holzhütter HermannGeorg,
Boeing Heiner
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
annals of human genetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.537
H-Index - 77
eISSN - 1469-1809
pISSN - 0003-4800
DOI - 10.1111/ahg.12115
Subject(s) - single nucleotide polymorphism , snp , genotype , genetics , minor allele frequency , tag snp , allele , biology , epic , locus (genetics) , lasso (programming language) , selection (genetic algorithm) , genetic association , gene , computer science , art , literature , artificial intelligence , world wide web
Summary Analyzing multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is a promising approach to finding genetic effects beyond single‐locus associations. We proposed the use of multilocus stepwise regression (MSR) to screen for allele combinations as a method to model joint effects, and compared the results with the often used genetic risk score (GRS), conventional stepwise selection, and the shrinkage method LASSO. In contrast to MSR, the GRS, conventional stepwise selection, and LASSO model each genotype by the risk allele doses. We reanalyzed 20 unlinked SNPs related to type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the EPIC‐Potsdam case‐cohort study (760 cases, 2193 noncases). No SNP–SNP interactions and no nonlinear effects were found. Two SNP combinations selected by MSR (Nagelkerke's R ² = 0.050 and 0.048) included eight SNPs with mean allele combination frequency of 2%. GRS and stepwise selection selected nearly the same SNP combinations consisting of 12 and 13 SNPs (Nagelkerke's R ² ranged from 0.020 to 0.029). LASSO showed similar results. The MSR method showed the best model fit measured by Nagelkerke's R ² suggesting that further improvement may render this method a useful tool in genetic research. However, our comparison suggests that the GRS is a simple way to model genetic effects since it does not consider linkage, SNP–SNP interactions, and no non‐linear effects.