MOTIVATION: Inappropriate disclosure of human genomes may put the privacy of study subjects and of their family members at risk. Existing privacy-preserving mechanisms for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) mainly focus on protecting individual information in case-control studies. Protecting privacy in family-based studies is more difficult. The transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) is a powerful family-based association test employed in many rare disease studies. It gathers information about families (most frequently involving parents, affected children and their siblings). It is important to develop privacy-preserving approaches to disclose TDT statistics with a guarantee that the risk of family 're-identification' stays below a pre-specified risk threshold. 'Re-identification' in this context means that an attacker can infer that the presence of a family in a study. METHODS: In the context of protecting family-level privacy, we developed and evaluated a suite of differentially private (DP) mechanisms for TDT. They include Laplace mechanisms based on the TDT test statistic, P-values, projected P-values and exponential mechanisms based on the TDT test statistic and the shortest Hamming distance (SHD) score. RESULTS: Using simulation studies with a small cohort and a large one, we showed that that the exponential mechanism based on the SHD score preserves the highest utility and privacy among all proposed DP methods. We provide a guideline on applying our DP TDT in a real dataset in analyzing Kawasaki disease with 187 families and 906 SNPs. There are some limitations, including: (1) the performance of our implementation is slow for real-time results generation and (2) handling missing data is still challenging. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The software dpTDT is available in https://github.com/mwgrassgreen/dpTDT. CONTACT: mengw1@stanford.edu. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
MOTIVATION: Inappropriate disclosure of human genomes may put the privacy of study subjects and of their family members at risk. Existing privacy-preserving mechanisms for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) mainly focus on protecting individual information in case-control studies. Protecting privacy in family-based studies is more difficult. The transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) is a powerful family-based association test employed in many rare disease studies. It gathers information about families (most frequently involving parents, affected children and their siblings). It is important to develop privacy-preserving approaches to disclose TDT statistics with a guarantee that the risk of family 're-identification' stays below a pre-specified risk threshold. 'Re-identification' in this context means that an attacker can infer that the presence of a family in a study. METHODS: In the context of protecting family-level privacy, we developed and evaluated a suite of differentially private (DP) mechanisms for TDT. They include Laplace mechanisms based on the TDT test statistic, P-values, projected P-values and exponential mechanisms based on the TDT test statistic and the shortest Hamming distance (SHD) score. RESULTS: Using simulation studies with a small cohort and a large one, we showed that that the exponential mechanism based on the SHD score preserves the highest utility and privacy among all proposed DP methods. We provide a guideline on applying our DP TDT in a real dataset in analyzing Kawasaki disease with 187 families and 906 SNPs. There are some limitations, including: (1) the performance of our implementation is slow for real-time results generation and (2) handling missing data is still challenging. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The software dpTDT is available in https://github.com/mwgrassgreen/dpTDT. CONTACT: mengw1@stanford.edu. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: Stacey B Gabriel; Stephen F Schaffner; Huy Nguyen; Jamie M Moore; Jessica Roy; Brendan Blumenstiel; John Higgins; Matthew DeFelice; Amy Lochner; Maura Faggart; Shau Neen Liu-Cordero; Charles Rotimi; Adebowale Adeyemo; Richard Cooper; Ryk Ward; Eric S Lander; Mark J Daly; David Altshuler Journal: Science Date: 2002-05-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Feng Chen; Shuang Wang; Xiaoqian Jiang; Sijie Ding; Yao Lu; Jihoon Kim; S Cenk Sahinalp; Chisato Shimizu; Jane C Burns; Victoria J Wright; Eileen Png; Martin L Hibberd; David D Lloyd; Hai Yang; Amalio Telenti; Cinnamon S Bloss; Dov Fox; Kristin Lauter; Lucila Ohno-Machado Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: David W Craig; Robert M Goor; Zhenyuan Wang; Justin Paschall; Jim Ostell; Michael Feolo; Stephen T Sherry; Teri A Manolio Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Nils Homer; Szabolcs Szelinger; Margot Redman; David Duggan; Waibhav Tembe; Jill Muehling; John V Pearson; Dietrich A Stephan; Stanley F Nelson; David W Craig Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2008-08-29 Impact factor: 5.917