Literature DB >> 28583209

Fine mapping by composite genome-wide association analysis.

Joaquim Casellas1, Jhon Jacobo Cañas-Álvarez2, Marta Fina2, Jesús Piedrafita2, Alessio Cecchinato3.   

Abstract

Genome-wide association (GWA) studies play a key role in current genetics research, unravelling genomic regions linked to phenotypic traits of interest in multiple species. Nevertheless, the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) may provide confounding results when significant genetic markers span along several contiguous cM. In this study, we have adapted the composite interval mapping approach to the GWA framework (composite GWA), in order to evaluate the impact of including competing (possibly linked) genetic markers when testing for the additive allelic effect inherent to a given genetic marker. We tested model performance on simulated data sets under different scenarios (i.e., qualitative trait loci effects, LD between genetic markers and width of the genomic region involved in the analysis). Our results showed that the genomic region had a small impact on the number of competing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as well as on the precision of the composite GWA analysis. A similar conclusion was derived from the preferable range of LD between the tested SNP and competing SNPs, although moderate-to-high LD seemed to attenuate the loss of statistical power. The composite GWA improved specificity and reduced the number of significant genetic markers. The composite GWA model contributes a novel point of view for GWA analyses where testing circumscribed to the genomic region flanking each SNP (delimited by the nearest competing SNPs) and conditioning on linked markers increases the precision to locate causal mutations, but possibly at the expense of power.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28583209      PMCID: PMC6865146          DOI: 10.1017/S0016672317000027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)        ISSN: 0016-6723            Impact factor:   1.588


  29 in total

1.  A variable selection method for genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Qianchuan He; Dan-Yu Lin
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Complement factor H polymorphism in age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Robert J Klein; Caroline Zeiss; Emily Y Chew; Jen-Yue Tsai; Richard S Sackler; Chad Haynes; Alice K Henning; John Paul SanGiovanni; Shrikant M Mane; Susan T Mayne; Michael B Bracken; Frederick L Ferris; Jurg Ott; Colin Barnstable; Josephine Hoh
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-03-10       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Evolution in Mendelian Populations.

Authors:  S Wright
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1931-03       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  How to interpret a genome-wide association study.

Authors:  Thomas A Pearson; Teri A Manolio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Family-based genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Beben Benyamin; Peter M Visscher; Allan F McRae
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.533

6.  Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations.

Authors:  A Toosi; R L Fernando; J C M Dekkers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 3.159

7.  Short communication: effect of mutation age on genomic predictions.

Authors:  J Casellas; L Varona
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.034

8.  Genomewide markers as cofactors for precision mapping of quantitative trait loci.

Authors:  R Bernardo
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 5.699

9.  High resolution of quantitative traits into multiple loci via interval mapping.

Authors:  R C Jansen; P Stam
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence.

Authors:  Aylwyn Scally; Julien Y Dutheil; LaDeana W Hillier; Gregory E Jordan; Ian Goodhead; Javier Herrero; Asger Hobolth; Tuuli Lappalainen; Thomas Mailund; Tomas Marques-Bonet; Shane McCarthy; Stephen H Montgomery; Petra C Schwalie; Y Amy Tang; Michelle C Ward; Yali Xue; Bryndis Yngvadottir; Can Alkan; Lars N Andersen; Qasim Ayub; Edward V Ball; Kathryn Beal; Brenda J Bradley; Yuan Chen; Chris M Clee; Stephen Fitzgerald; Tina A Graves; Yong Gu; Paul Heath; Andreas Heger; Emre Karakoc; Anja Kolb-Kokocinski; Gavin K Laird; Gerton Lunter; Stephen Meader; Matthew Mort; James C Mullikin; Kasper Munch; Timothy D O'Connor; Andrew D Phillips; Javier Prado-Martinez; Anthony S Rogers; Saba Sajjadian; Dominic Schmidt; Katy Shaw; Jared T Simpson; Peter D Stenson; Daniel J Turner; Linda Vigilant; Albert J Vilella; Weldon Whitener; Baoli Zhu; David N Cooper; Pieter de Jong; Emmanouil T Dermitzakis; Evan E Eichler; Paul Flicek; Nick Goldman; Nicholas I Mundy; Zemin Ning; Duncan T Odom; Chris P Ponting; Michael A Quail; Oliver A Ryder; Stephen M Searle; Wesley C Warren; Richard K Wilson; Mikkel H Schierup; Jane Rogers; Chris Tyler-Smith; Richard Durbin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.