József Bukszár1, Joseph L McClay, Edwin J C G van den Oord. 1. Center for Biomarker Research and Personalized Medicine, School of Pharmacy, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1112 East Clay Street, PO Box 980533, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA. jbukszar@vcu.edu
Abstract
MOTIVATION: A limitation of current methods used to declare significance in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is that they do not provide clear information about the probability that GWAS findings are true of false. This lack of information increases the chance of false discoveries and may result in real effects being missed. RESULTS: We propose a method to estimate the posterior probability that a marker has (no) effect given its test statistic value, also called the local false discovery rate (FDR), in the GWAS. A critical step involves the estimation the parameters of the distribution of the true alternative tests. For this, we derived and implemented the real maximum likelihood function, which turned out to provide us with significantly more accurate estimates than the widely used mixture model likelihood. Actual GWAS data are used to illustrate properties of the posterior probability estimates empirically. In addition to evaluating individual markers, a variety of applications are conceivable. For instance, posterior probability estimates can be used to control the FDR more precisely than Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. AVAILABILITY: The codes are freely downloadable from the web site http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jbukszar.
MOTIVATION: A limitation of current methods used to declare significance in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is that they do not provide clear information about the probability that GWAS findings are true of false. This lack of information increases the chance of false discoveries and may result in real effects being missed. RESULTS: We propose a method to estimate the posterior probability that a marker has (no) effect given its test statistic value, also called the local false discovery rate (FDR), in the GWAS. A critical step involves the estimation the parameters of the distribution of the true alternative tests. For this, we derived and implemented the real maximum likelihood function, which turned out to provide us with significantly more accurate estimates than the widely used mixture model likelihood. Actual GWAS data are used to illustrate properties of the posterior probability estimates empirically. In addition to evaluating individual markers, a variety of applications are conceivable. For instance, posterior probability estimates can be used to control the FDR more precisely than Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. AVAILABILITY: The codes are freely downloadable from the web site http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jbukszar.
Authors: Edwin J C G van den Oord; Po-Hsiu Kuo; Annette M Hartmann; B Todd Webb; Hans-Jürgen Möller; John M Hettema; Ina Giegling; József Bukszár; Dan Rujescu Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2008-09
Authors: Joseph L McClay; Daniel E Adkins; Karolina Aberg; Jozsef Bukszár; Amit N Khachane; Richard S E Keefe; Diana O Perkins; Joseph P McEvoy; T Scott Stroup; Robert E Vann; Patrick M Beardsley; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Patrick F Sullivan; Edwin J C G van den Oord Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: D E Adkins; K Aberg; J L McClay; J Bukszár; Z Zhao; P Jia; T S Stroup; D Perkins; J P McEvoy; J A Lieberman; P F Sullivan; E J C G van den Oord Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Karolina Aberg; Daniel E Adkins; József Bukszár; Bradley T Webb; Stanley N Caroff; Del D Miller; Jonathan Sebat; Scott Stroup; Ayman H Fanous; Vladimir I Vladimirov; Joseph L McClay; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Patrick F Sullivan; Edwin J C G van den Oord Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Joseph L McClay; Daniel E Adkins; Sarah A Vunck; Angela M Batman; Robert E Vann; Shaunna L Clark; Patrick M Beardsley; Edwin J C G van den Oord Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: K Aberg; D E Adkins; Y Liu; J L McClay; J Bukszár; P Jia; Z Zhao; D Perkins; T S Stroup; J A Lieberman; P F Sullivan; E J C G van den Oord Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Wesley K Thompson; Yunpeng Wang; Andrew J Schork; Aree Witoelar; Verena Zuber; Shujing Xu; Thomas Werge; Dominic Holland; Ole A Andreassen; Anders M Dale Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 5.917