BACKGROUND: Given that genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of psychiatric disorders have identified only a small number of convincingly associated variants (single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP]), there is interest in seeking additional evidence for associated variants with tests of gene-gene interaction. Comprehensive pair-wise single SNP-SNP interaction analysis is computationally intensive, and the penalty for multiple testing is severe, given the number of interactions possible. Aiming to minimize these statistical and computational burdens, we have explored approaches to prioritize SNPs for interaction analyses. METHODS: Primary interaction analyses were performed with the Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium bipolar disorder GWAS (1868 cases, 2938 control subjects). Replication analyses were performed with the Genetic Association Information Network bipolar disorder dataset (1001 cases, 1033 control subjects). The SNPs were prioritized for interaction analysis that showed evidence for association that surpassed a number of nominally significant thresholds, are within genome-wide significant genes, or are within genes that are functionally related. RESULTS: For no set of prioritized SNPs did we obtain evidence to support the hypothesis that the selection strategy identified pairs of variants that were enriched for true (statistical) interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The SNPs prioritized according to a number of criteria do not have a raised prior probability for significant interaction that is detectable in samples of this size. We argue that the use of significance levels reflecting only the number of tests performed, as is now widely accepted for single SNP analysis, does not offer an appropriate degree of protection against the potential for GWAS studies to generate an enormous number of false positive interactions.
BACKGROUND: Given that genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of psychiatric disorders have identified only a small number of convincingly associated variants (single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP]), there is interest in seeking additional evidence for associated variants with tests of gene-gene interaction. Comprehensive pair-wise single SNP-SNP interaction analysis is computationally intensive, and the penalty for multiple testing is severe, given the number of interactions possible. Aiming to minimize these statistical and computational burdens, we have explored approaches to prioritize SNPs for interaction analyses. METHODS: Primary interaction analyses were performed with the Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium bipolar disorder GWAS (1868 cases, 2938 control subjects). Replication analyses were performed with the Genetic Association Information Network bipolar disorder dataset (1001 cases, 1033 control subjects). The SNPs were prioritized for interaction analysis that showed evidence for association that surpassed a number of nominally significant thresholds, are within genome-wide significant genes, or are within genes that are functionally related. RESULTS: For no set of prioritized SNPs did we obtain evidence to support the hypothesis that the selection strategy identified pairs of variants that were enriched for true (statistical) interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The SNPs prioritized according to a number of criteria do not have a raised prior probability for significant interaction that is detectable in samples of this size. We argue that the use of significance levels reflecting only the number of tests performed, as is now widely accepted for single SNP analysis, does not offer an appropriate degree of protection against the potential for GWAS studies to generate an enormous number of false positive interactions.
Authors: Michael E Talkowski; Hader Mansour; Kodavali V Chowdari; Joel Wood; Allison Butler; Panchami G Varma; Suman Prasad; Prachi Semwal; Triptish Bhatia; Smita Deshpande; Bernie Devlin; B K Thelma; Vishwajit L Nimgaonkar Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2006-08-07 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Michael Steffens; Tim Becker; Thomas Sander; Rolf Fimmers; Christine Herold; Daniela A Holler; Costin Leu; Stefan Herms; Sven Cichon; Bastian Bohn; Thomas Gerstner; Michael Griebel; Markus M Nöthen; Thomas F Wienker; Max P Baur Journal: Hum Hered Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 0.444
Authors: V Moskvina; N Craddock; P Holmans; I Nikolov; J S Pahwa; E Green; M J Owen; M C O'Donovan Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: A Pandey; N A Davis; B C White; N M Pajewski; J Savitz; W C Drevets; B A McKinney Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Gavin Lucas; Carla Lluís-Ganella; Isaac Subirana; Muntaser D Musameh; Juan Ramon Gonzalez; Christopher P Nelson; Mariano Sentí; Stephen M Schwartz; David Siscovick; Christopher J O'Donnell; Olle Melander; Veikko Salomaa; Shaun Purcell; David Altshuler; Nilesh J Samani; Sekar Kathiresan; Roberto Elosua Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240