BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at multiple loci that are significantly associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. In this study, we sought to determine and compare the predictive capabilities of 9p21.3 alone and a panel of SNPs identified and replicated through GWAS for CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the Ottawa Heart Genomics Study (OHGS) (3323 cases, 2319 control subjects) and the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) (1926 cases, 2938 control subjects) data sets. We compared the ability of allele counting, logistic regression, and support vector machines. Two sets of SNPs, 9p21.3 alone and a set of 12 SNPs identified by GWAS and through a model-fitting procedure, were considered. Performance was assessed by measuring area under the curve (AUC) for OHGS using 10-fold cross-validation and WTCCC as a replication set. AUC for logistic regression using OHGS increased significantly from 0.555 to 0.608 (P=3.59×10⁻¹⁴) for 9p21.3 versus the 12 SNPs, respectively. This difference remained when traditional risk factors were considered in a subgroup of OHGS (1388 cases, 2038 control subjects), with AUC increasing from 0.804 to 0.809 (P=0.037). The added predictive value over and above the traditional risk factors was not significant for 9p21.3 (AUC 0.801 versus 0.804, P=0.097) but was for the 12 SNPs (AUC 0.801 versus 0.809, P=0.0073). Performance was similar between OHGS and WTCCC. Logistic regression outperformed both support vector machines and allele counting. CONCLUSIONS: Using the collective of 12 SNPs confers significantly greater predictive capabilities for CAD than 9p21.3, whether traditional risks are or are not considered. More accurate models probably will evolve as additional CAD-associated SNPs are identified.
BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at multiple loci that are significantly associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. In this study, we sought to determine and compare the predictive capabilities of 9p21.3 alone and a panel of SNPs identified and replicated through GWAS for CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the Ottawa Heart Genomics Study (OHGS) (3323 cases, 2319 control subjects) and the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) (1926 cases, 2938 control subjects) data sets. We compared the ability of allele counting, logistic regression, and support vector machines. Two sets of SNPs, 9p21.3 alone and a set of 12 SNPs identified by GWAS and through a model-fitting procedure, were considered. Performance was assessed by measuring area under the curve (AUC) for OHGS using 10-fold cross-validation and WTCCC as a replication set. AUC for logistic regression using OHGS increased significantly from 0.555 to 0.608 (P=3.59×10⁻¹⁴) for 9p21.3 versus the 12 SNPs, respectively. This difference remained when traditional risk factors were considered in a subgroup of OHGS (1388 cases, 2038 control subjects), with AUC increasing from 0.804 to 0.809 (P=0.037). The added predictive value over and above the traditional risk factors was not significant for 9p21.3 (AUC 0.801 versus 0.804, P=0.097) but was for the 12 SNPs (AUC 0.801 versus 0.809, P=0.0073). Performance was similar between OHGS and WTCCC. Logistic regression outperformed both support vector machines and allele counting. CONCLUSIONS: Using the collective of 12 SNPs confers significantly greater predictive capabilities for CAD than 9p21.3, whether traditional risks are or are not considered. More accurate models probably will evolve as additional CAD-associated SNPs are identified.
Authors: Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Anna Helgadottir; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Andrei Manolescu; Solveig Gretarsdottir; Thorarinn Blondal; Aslaug Jonasdottir; Adalbjorg Jonasdottir; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Adam Baker; Arnar Palsson; Gisli Masson; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Kristinn P Magnusson; Karl Andersen; Allan I Levey; Valgerdur M Backman; Sigurborg Matthiasdottir; Thorbjorg Jonsdottir; Stefan Palsson; Helga Einarsdottir; Steinunn Gunnarsdottir; Arnaldur Gylfason; Viola Vaccarino; W Craig Hooper; Muredach P Reilly; Christopher B Granger; Harland Austin; Daniel J Rader; Svati H Shah; Arshed A Quyyumi; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Gudmundur Thorgeirsson; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Augustine Kong; Kari Stefansson Journal: Science Date: 2007-05-03 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Sonny Dandona; Li Chen; Meng Fan; Md Afaque Alam; Olivia Assogba; Melanie Belanger; Kathryn Williams; George A Wells; W H Wilson Tang; Stephen G Ellis; Stanley L Hazen; Ruth McPherson; Robert Roberts; Alexandre F R Stewart Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Nina P Paynter; Daniel I Chasman; Guillaume Paré; Julie E Buring; Nancy R Cook; Joseph P Miletich; Paul M Ridker Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ruth McPherson; Alexander Pertsemlidis; Nihan Kavaslar; Alexandre Stewart; Robert Roberts; David R Cox; David A Hinds; Len A Pennacchio; Anne Tybjaerg-Hansen; Aaron R Folsom; Eric Boerwinkle; Helen H Hobbs; Jonathan C Cohen Journal: Science Date: 2007-05-03 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Nilesh J Samani; Jeanette Erdmann; Alistair S Hall; Christian Hengstenberg; Massimo Mangino; Bjoern Mayer; Richard J Dixon; Thomas Meitinger; Peter Braund; H-Erich Wichmann; Jennifer H Barrett; Inke R König; Suzanne E Stevens; Silke Szymczak; David-Alexandre Tregouet; Mark M Iles; Friedrich Pahlke; Helen Pollard; Wolfgang Lieb; Francois Cambien; Marcus Fischer; Willem Ouwehand; Stefan Blankenberg; Anthony J Balmforth; Andrea Baessler; Stephen G Ball; Tim M Strom; Ingrid Braenne; Christian Gieger; Panos Deloukas; Martin D Tobin; Andreas Ziegler; John R Thompson; Heribert Schunkert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N Yiannakouris; M Katsoulis; V Dilis; L D Parnell; D Trichopoulos; J M Ordovas; A Trichopoulou Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: George Thanassoulis; Gina M Peloso; Michael J Pencina; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox; L Adrienne Cupples; Daniel Levy; Ralph B D'Agostino; Shih-Jen Hwang; Christopher J O'Donnell Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2012-01-10
Authors: Riyaz S Patel; Yan V Sun; Jaana Hartiala; Emir Veledar; Shaoyong Su; Salman Sher; Ying X Liu; Ayaz Rahman; Ronak Patel; S Tanveer Rab; Viola Vaccarino; A Maziar Zafari; Habib Samady; W H Wilson Tang; Hooman Allayee; Stanley L Hazen; Arshed A Quyyumi Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2012-07-05
Authors: Ariel Brautbar; Lisa A Pompeii; Abbas Dehghan; Julius S Ngwa; Vijay Nambi; Salim S Virani; Fernando Rivadeneira; André G Uitterlinden; Albert Hofman; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Michael J Pencina; Aaron R Folsom; L Adrienne Cupples; Christie M Ballantyne; Eric Boerwinkle Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Meng Fan; Sonny Dandona; Ruth McPherson; Hooman Allayee; Stanley L Hazen; George A Wells; Robert Roberts; Alexandre F R Stewart Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2013-05-31