Literature DB >> 22158671

Participant identification in genetic association studies: improved methods and practical implications.

Nicholas Masca1, Paul R Burton, Nuala A Sheehan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In a recent paper by Homer et al. (Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 2008;4:e1000167), a method for detecting whether a given individual is a contributor to a particular genomic mixture was proposed. This prompted grave concern about the public dissemination of aggregate statistics from genome-wide association studies. It is of clear scientific importance that such data be shared widely, but the confidentiality of study participants must not be compromised. The issue of what summary genomic data can safely be posted on the web is only addressed satisfactorily when the theoretical underpinnings of the proposed method are clarified and its performance evaluated in terms of dependence on underlying assumptions.
METHODS: The original method raised a number of concerns and several alternatives have since been proposed, including a simple linear regression approach. In our proposed generalized estimating equation approach, we maintain the simplicity of the linear regression model but obtain inferences that are more robust to approximation of the variance/covariance structure and can accommodate linkage disequilibrium.
RESULTS: We affirm that, in principle, it is possible to determine that a 'candidate' individual has participated in a study, given a subset of aggregate statistics from that study. However, the methods depend critically on a number of key factors including: the ancestry of participants in the study; the absolute and relative numbers of cases and controls; and the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms.
CONCLUSIONS: Simple guidelines for publication that are based on a single criterion are therefore unlikely to suffice. In particular, 'directed' summary statistics should not be posted openly on the web but could be protected by an internet-based access check as proposed by the P3G_Consortium et al. (Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000665).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22158671      PMCID: PMC3235023          DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyr149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  26 in total

1.  A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data.

Authors:  R L Williams
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Case-control studies of association in structured or admixed populations.

Authors:  J K Pritchard; P Donnelly
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.570

Review 3.  Population stratification and spurious allelic association.

Authors:  Lon R Cardon; Lyle J Palmer
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-02-15       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Likelihood-based inference for genetic correlation coefficients.

Authors:  David J Balding
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.570

5.  The effects of human population structure on large genetic association studies.

Authors:  Jonathan Marchini; Lon R Cardon; Michael S Phillips; Peter Donnelly
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2004-03-28       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  Estimating equations for association structures.

Authors:  Jun Yan; Jason Fine
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  An overview of methods for the analysis of longitudinal data.

Authors:  S L Zeger; K Y Liang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Cohort profile: 1958 British birth cohort (National Child Development Study).

Authors:  Chris Power; Jane Elliott
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09-09       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Complex mixtures: a critical examination of a paper by Homer et al.

Authors:  Thore Egeland; A Elida Fonneløp; Paul R Berg; Matthew Kent; Sigbjørn Lien
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 4.882

10.  Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  9 in total

1.  Scalable privacy-preserving data sharing methodology for genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Fei Yu; Stephen E Fienberg; Aleksandra B Slavković; Caroline Uhler
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  Informants a potential threat to confidentiality in small studies.

Authors:  Gert Helgesson
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-02

3.  Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Nicole Martinez-Martin; David Magnus
Journal:  Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev       Date:  2019-04-08

4.  Privacy in the Genomic Era.

Authors:  Muhammad Naveed; Erman Ayday; Ellen W Clayton; Jacques Fellay; Carl A Gunter; Jean-Pierre Hubaux; Bradley A Malin; Xiaofeng Wang
Journal:  ACM Comput Surv       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 10.282

5.  Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing for Genome-Wide Association Studies.

Authors:  Caroline Uhlerop; Aleksandra Slavković; Stephen E Fienberg
Journal:  J Priv Confid       Date:  2013

6.  Addressing Benefits, Risks and Consent in Next Generation Sequencing Studies.

Authors:  R Meller
Journal:  J Clin Res Bioeth       Date:  2015-12-14

7.  Gene and Network Analysis of Common Variants Reveals Novel Associations in Multiple Complex Diseases.

Authors:  Priyanka Nakka; Benjamin J Raphael; Sohini Ramachandran
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Sharing extended summary data from contemporary genetics studies is unlikely to threaten subject privacy.

Authors:  Silviu-Alin Bacanu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.

Authors:  Madeleine J Murtagh; Mwenza T Blell; Olly W Butters; Lorraine Cowley; Edward S Dove; Alissa Goodman; Rebecca L Griggs; Alison Hall; Nina Hallowell; Meena Kumari; Massimo Mangino; Barbara Maughan; Melinda C Mills; Joel T Minion; Tom Murphy; Gillian Prior; Matthew Suderman; Susan M Ring; Nina T Rogers; Stephanie J Roberts; Catherine Van der Straeten; Will Viney; Deborah Wiltshire; Andrew Wong; Neil Walker; Paul R Burton
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 4.639

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.