Literature DB >> 20707869

Hierarchical modeling for estimating relative risks of rare genetic variants: properties of the pseudo-likelihood method.

Marinela Capanu1, Colin B Begg.   

Abstract

Many major genes have been identified that strongly influence the risk of cancer. However, there are typically many different mutations that can occur in the gene, each of which may or may not confer increased risk. It is critical to identify which specific mutations are harmful, and which ones are harmless, so that individuals who learn from genetic testing that they have a mutation can be appropriately counseled. This is a challenging task, since new mutations are continually being identified, and there is typically relatively little evidence available about each individual mutation. In an earlier article, we employed hierarchical modeling (Capanu et al., 2008, Statistics in Medicine 27, 1973-1992) using the pseudo-likelihood and Gibbs sampling methods to estimate the relative risks of individual rare variants using data from a case-control study and showed that one can draw strength from the aggregating power of hierarchical models to distinguish the variants that contribute to cancer risk. However, further research is needed to validate the application of asymptotic methods to such sparse data. In this article, we use simulations to study in detail the properties of the pseudo-likelihood method for this purpose. We also explore two alternative approaches: pseudo-likelihood with correction for the variance component estimate as proposed by Lin and Breslow (1996, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 1007-1016) and a hybrid pseudo-likelihood approach with Bayesian estimation of the variance component. We investigate the validity of these hierarchical modeling techniques by looking at the bias and coverage properties of the estimators as well as at the efficiency of the hierarchical modeling estimates relative to that of the maximum likelihood estimates. The results indicate that the estimates of the relative risks of very sparse variants have small bias, and that the estimated 95% confidence intervals are typically anti-conservative, though the actual coverage rates are generally above 90%. The widths of the confidence intervals narrow as the residual variance in the second-stage model is reduced. The results also show that the hierarchical modeling estimates have shorter confidence intervals relative to estimates obtained from conventional logistic regression, and that these relative improvements increase as the variants become more rare.
© 2010, The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20707869      PMCID: PMC3015025          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01469.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  18 in total

Review 1.  Towards a structural basis of human non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms.

Authors:  S Sunyaev; V Ramensky; P Bork
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.639

2.  Using hierarchical modeling in genetic association studies with multiple markers: application to a case-control study of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Rayjean J Hung; Paul Brennan; Christian Malaveille; Stefano Porru; Francesco Donato; Paolo Boffetta; John S Witte
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Hierarchical Bayes prioritization of marker associations from a genome-wide association scan for further investigation.

Authors:  Juan Pablo Lewinger; David V Conti; James W Baurley; Timothy J Triche; Duncan C Thomas
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  The use of hierarchical models for estimating relative risks of individual genetic variants: an application to a study of melanoma.

Authors:  Marinela Capanu; Irene Orlow; Marianne Berwick; Amanda J Hummer; Duncan C Thomas; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  The emerging landscape of breast cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  Classification of Missense Mutations of Disease Genes.

Authors:  Xi Zhou; Edwin S Iversen; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.033

7.  Simulation study of hierarchical regression.

Authors:  J S Witte; S Greenland
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Hierarchical modeling of gene-environment interactions: estimating NAT2 genotype-specific dietary effects on adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  C C Aragaki; S Greenland; N Probst-Hensch; R W Haile
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 9.  The genetics of melanoma.

Authors:  Julia Newton Bishop; Mark Harland; D Tim Bishop
Journal:  Br J Hosp Med (Lond)       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 0.825

10.  Study design: evaluating gene-environment interactions in the etiology of breast cancer - the WECARE study.

Authors:  Jonine L Bernstein; Bryan Langholz; Robert W Haile; Leslie Bernstein; Duncan C Thomas; Marilyn Stovall; Kathleen E Malone; Charles F Lynch; Jørgen H Olsen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Roy E Shore; John D Boice; Gertrud S Berkowitz; Richard A Gatti; Susan L Teitelbaum; Susan A Smith; Barry S Rosenstein; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Patrick Concannon; W Douglas Thompson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2004-03-09       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  17 in total

1.  Group association test using a hidden Markov model.

Authors:  Yichen Cheng; James Y Dai; Charles Kooperberg
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Incorporating model uncertainty in detecting rare variants: the Bayesian risk index.

Authors:  Melanie A Quintana; Jonine L Berstein; Duncan C Thomas; David V Conti
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 2.135

3.  Unified Sequence-Based Association Tests Allowing for Multiple Functional Annotations and Meta-analysis of Noncoding Variation in Metabochip Data.

Authors:  Zihuai He; Bin Xu; Seunggeun Lee; Iuliana Ionita-Laza
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  An assessment of estimation methods for generalized linear mixed models with binary outcomes.

Authors:  Marinela Capanu; Mithat Gönen; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  A variational Bayes discrete mixture test for rare variant association.

Authors:  Benjamin A Logsdon; James Y Dai; Paul L Auer; Jill M Johnsen; Santhi K Ganesh; Nicholas L Smith; James G Wilson; Russell P Tracy; Leslie A Lange; Shuo Jiao; Stephen S Rich; Guillaume Lettre; Christopher S Carlson; Rebecca D Jackson; Christopher J O'Donnell; Mark M Wurfel; Deborah A Nickerson; Hua Tang; Alexander P Reiner; Charles Kooperberg
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.135

6.  False discovery rates for rare variants from sequenced data.

Authors:  Marinela Capanu; Venkatraman E Seshan
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 2.135

7.  Confounded by sequencing depth in association studies of rare alleles.

Authors:  Chad Garner
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.135

8.  A unified mixed-effects model for rare-variant association in sequencing studies.

Authors:  Jianping Sun; Yingye Zheng; Li Hsu
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 2.135

9.  Joint analysis for integrating two related studies of different data types and different study designs using hierarchical modeling approaches.

Authors:  Rui Li; David V Conti; David Diaz-Sanchez; Frank Gilliland; Duncan C Thomas
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 0.444

10.  A hierarchical modeling approach for assessing the safety of exposure to complex antiretroviral drug regimens during pregnancy.

Authors:  Katharine Correia; Paige L Williams
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.