| Literature DB >> 25519389 |
Li Yang1, Jing Xuan1, Zheyang Wu1.
Abstract
Although many genetic factors have been successfully identified for human diseases in genome-wide association studies, genes discovered to date only account for a small proportion of overall genetic contributions to many complex traits. Association studies have difficulty in detecting the remaining true genetic variants that are either common variants with weak allelic effects, or rare variants that have strong allelic effects but are weakly associated at the population level. In this work, we applied a goodness-of-fit test for detecting sets of common and rare variants associated with quantitative or binary traits by using whole genome sequencing data. This test has been proved optimal for detecting weak and sparse signals in the literature, which fits the requirements for targeting the genetic components of missing heritability. Furthermore, this p value-combining method allows one to incorporate different data and/or research results for meta-analysis. The method was used to simultaneously analyse the whole genome sequencing and genome-wide association studies data of Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 for detecting true genetic variants. The results show that goodness-of-fit test is comparable or better than the influential sequence kernel association test in many cases.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25519389 PMCID: PMC4143767 DOI: 10.1186/1753-6561-8-S1-S51
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Proc ISSN: 1753-6561
Figure 1Power of GOFT for different window sizes with or without collapsing variants. Power is estimated by the true-positive rate of true-association windows on chr3 based on GAW18 simulation replicate 1.
Figure 2Power of GOFT and SKAT under different weighting schemes. Power is estimated by the true-positive rate of 87 true 10-kbp windows on chr3.
Figure 3Comparison patterns between GOFT and SKAT for detecting true windows. Left: Window 4799 illustrates a case where GOFT is better. Middle: Window 5701 is an example where SKAT with logistic-weight is better. Right: Window 13613 is an example of both methods being similar.
Figure 4Type I error rate and power for GWAS-WGS meta-analysis. Left: Empirical type I error rate (ie, false-positive rate) in the meta-analysis. Right: Power of detecting the 87 true 10-kbp windows on chr3 when GWAS data were added or not.