Literature DB >> 29246109

MetaGenyo: a web tool for meta-analysis of genetic association studies.

Jordi Martorell-Marugan1, Daniel Toro-Dominguez1,2, Marta E Alarcon-Riquelme2,3, Pedro Carmona-Saez4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genetic association studies (GAS) aims to evaluate the association between genetic variants and phenotypes. In the last few years, the number of this type of study has increased exponentially, but the results are not always reproducible due to experimental designs, low sample sizes and other methodological errors. In this field, meta-analysis techniques are becoming very popular tools to combine results across studies to increase statistical power and to resolve discrepancies in genetic association studies. A meta-analysis summarizes research findings, increases statistical power and enables the identification of genuine associations between genotypes and phenotypes. Meta-analysis techniques are increasingly used in GAS, but it is also increasing the amount of published meta-analysis containing different errors. Although there are several software packages that implement meta-analysis, none of them are specifically designed for genetic association studies and in most cases their use requires advanced programming or scripting expertise.
RESULTS: We have developed MetaGenyo, a web tool for meta-analysis in GAS. MetaGenyo implements a complete and comprehensive workflow that can be executed in an easy-to-use environment without programming knowledge. MetaGenyo has been developed to guide users through the main steps of a GAS meta-analysis, covering Hardy-Weinberg test, statistical association for different genetic models, analysis of heterogeneity, testing for publication bias, subgroup analysis and robustness testing of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: MetaGenyo is a useful tool to conduct comprehensive genetic association meta-analysis. The application is freely available at http://bioinfo.genyo.es/metagenyo/ .

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic association study; Meta-analysis; Shiny; Web tool

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29246109      PMCID: PMC5732412          DOI: 10.1186/s12859-017-1990-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1471-2105            Impact factor:   3.169


Background

Genetic association studies (GAS) estimate the statistical association between genetic variants and a given phenotype, usually complex diseases [1]. In the last few years, the number of genetic association studies has increased exponentially, but the results are not consistently reproducible. This lack of reproducibility may be influenced by several factors, including the analysis of non-heritable phenotype, inappropriate quality control, wrong statistical analysis, low sample size, population stratification, incorrect multiple-testing correction or technical biases [2]. Meta-analysis is a statistical technique for combining results across studies and it is becoming very popular as a method for resolving discrepancies in GAS. It summarizes research findings, increases statistical power and enables the identification of genuine associations [3]. In this context, in 2011 there was a 64-fold increase in genetics-related meta-analysis compared to 1995 [4]. Despite the increasing number of publications in this field there is a lack of dedicated software tools to perform a complete GAS meta-analysis in a friendly environment. In this context, most published works in the field have used commercial software suites such as STATA [5] or SPSS [6]. These are statistical software packages that include general functions for meta-analysis in their configuration. In addition, freely available R packages such as meta [7] or metafor [8] are also widely used but all these solutions share common limitations: do not provide all required steps for a GAS meta-analysis (e.g. evaluating Hardy Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) or genetic models) and require advanced statistical or bioinformatics knowledge to be properly used. In this context, Park et al. have reported several analytical errors in published GAS meta-analysis [9], many of them could be avoided using a dedicated software for GAS meta-analysis with predefined functions and automatic computations of the required statistics. Here we present MetaGenyo, an easy-to-use web application which implements a complete meta-analysis workflow for GAS. Once the data has been loaded, it provides a guided and complete workflow that comprises the main steps in GAS meta-analysis, including HWE test, checking heterogeneity, publication bias indicators, statistical association testing for different genetics models, subgroup analysis and robustness testing. The use of MetaGenyo does not require advanced statistical or bioinformatics knowledge and we hope it will be a useful application for researchers working in the field of genetic association studies.

Implementation

MetaGenyo has been implemented as a web tool using shiny [10], a web application framework for RStudio [11]. Backend computations are carried out in R using available packages and custom scripts. MetaGenyo provides the following functionalities:

Testing HWE

Departures from HWE can occur due to genotyping errors, selection bias and stratification [12]. Therefore, goodness-of-fit of HWE should be checked in each study before pooling data. HardyWeinberg package [13, 14] is used to compute a P-value for each study in the control population in order to identify low-quality studies. As we test for HWE in several studies, the obtained P-values are corrected by Benjamini and Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) [15].

Genetic models

Given two alleles (A, a) the three possible genotypes (AA, Aa, aa) can be dichotomized in different ways yielding different genetic models. GAS can be carried out assuming a specific genetic model based on biological criteria but in most of the cases different models are simultaneously evaluated. MetaGenyo performs meta-analysis in several ways [16], including allele contrast (A vs. a), recessive (AA vs. Aa + aa), dominant (AA + Aa vs. aa) and overdominant (Aa vs. AA + aa) genetic models as well as pairwise comparisons (AA vs. aa, AA vs. Aa and Aa vs. aa). All P-values are adjusted for multiple testing with the Bonferroni method [17].

Statistical analysis and heterogeneity

To perform meta-analysis, MetaGenyo combines the effect sizes of the included studies by weighting the data according to the amount of information in each study. Association values are calculated based on two different statistic models: Fixed Effects Model (FEM) and Random Effects Model (REM). The choosing between both models depends on the amount of heterogeneity in the data, which is also evaluated with heterogeneity indicators such as I2 and Cochran’s Q test (see on-line help of the program). Meta package (7) is used to get such heterogeneity indicators and association results. Finally, this same package is used to generate forest plots to summarize information for effect size and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of each study and the pooled effect. Forest plots can be generated for FEM, REM or both, and can be downloaded with very high resolution.

Publication bias

Publication bias occurs because of meta-analysis are performed using published studies, which usually report only significant associations, while studies showing no significant results tend to remain unpublished. This may therefore give a falsely skewed positive result. To test for publication bias, MetaGenyo provides funnel plots and Egger’s test [16] for each genetic model. Funnel plots are generated with meta package [7] and Egger’s test is performed using the metafor package [8].

Subgroup analysis

MetaGenyo provides a subgroup analysis in order to evaluate associations in a subset of studies based on the user defined criteria (e.g. studies from the same country). Many genetic associations are population-specific and can be undiscovered in a general meta-analysis, but discovered when studies are split. For each group, a meta-analysis is performed with FEM or REM, depending on the heterogeneity test: If heterogeneity P-value <0.1, REM will be used. Otherwise, FEM will be used instead. These results are downloadable in Excel and text formats.

Sensitivity analysis

In order to test the robustness of the meta-analysis performed, MetaGenyo performs a leave-one-out influence analysis using meta package [7]. Briefly, the meta-analysis is repeated several times, each time excluding one of the studies, in order to determine how each individual study affects the overall statistics [18]. A forest plot with these results is generated for the selected genetic model.

Software usage

An overview of MetaGenyo is provided in the on-line help of the application and Fig. 1. First, the user loads the collected data from individual studies as a text or Excel file with some specifications on the file format. Once the data has been loaded, a complete analysis is performed providing results and visualizations in different tabs: (1) The data tab, where the user can check if the data has been correctly submitted. (2) Hardy-Weinberg tab, where a HWE P-value column is added to the data. (3) Association values tab. This contains different association values and heterogeneity indicators for each genetic model. (4) Forest plot tab contains forest plot visualizations in high-quality image format for each genetic model. (5) Publication bias tab, where the user can see the funnel plot and Egger’s test results. (6) Subgroup analysis tab to obtain a summary of the analysis or to evaluate the association and heterogeneity results taking into account stratification based on user-defined variables and, finally, (7) Sensitivity tab to perform a robustness analysis.
Fig. 1

Overview of MetaGenyo. The scheme represents the tool’s workflow. First, data is uploaded by the user and it can be reviewed. Secondly, HWE P-values are calculated, so users can decide to exclude some bad-quality samples and reupload their data. In Association tests, Forest plots, Publication bias and Subgroup analysis tabs users can download the meta-analysis results. Finally, users can check the sensitivity analysis

Overview of MetaGenyo. The scheme represents the tool’s workflow. First, data is uploaded by the user and it can be reviewed. Secondly, HWE P-values are calculated, so users can decide to exclude some bad-quality samples and reupload their data. In Association tests, Forest plots, Publication bias and Subgroup analysis tabs users can download the meta-analysis results. Finally, users can check the sensitivity analysis

Results and discussion

Despite there are many programs designed to perform genome-wide association studies (GWAS) meta-analysis (reviewed in [19]), there is a lack of tools specially designed to perform GAS meta-analysis, so researchers use general statistical or meta-analysis software, adapting it to the particular purposes in such type of meta-analysis. This lack of dedicated software increases the required resources to perform a GAS meta-analysis, facilitates the inclusion of methodological errors and requires advanced bioinformatics expertise. Among the most widely used software solutions in this field are STATA [5], SPSS [6] and SAS [20]. These are popular software suites that provide a set of statistical functions that can be used in a broad range of applications and data analysis problems, but they are proprietary software and are not specialized in GAS meta-analysis. These limitations are partially overcome by R packages such as meta [7], rmeta [21] and metafor [8]. These are freely-available software libraries to perform a complete meta-analysis in a flexible way. However, their use requires R programming skills, they do not provide a guided workflow and they are not specifically designed to perform GAS meta-analysis. In addition, there are some Excel extensions such as MIX [22] and MetaEasy [23]. These extensions are easy to use, but they require the usage of the proprietary software Microsoft Excel. In this context, MetaGenyo is a user-friendly web application that implements a complete meta-analysis following a guided workflow, which does not require programming knowledge. Table 1 contains a summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of some reviewed GAS meta-analysis software.
Table 1

Characteristics of available meta-analysis software

STATASPSSMIXMetaEasymetarmetametaforMetaGenyo
USABILITY
AvailabilityCommercialCommercialCommerciala Freeb FreeFreeFreeFree
Web-basedNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes
Operating systemWindows, Mac OS, LinuxWindows, Mac OS, LinuxWindowsWindowsWindows, Mac OS, LinuxWindows, Mac OS, LinuxWindows, Mac OS, LinuxAnyc
Guided workflowNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes
Programming knowledgeYesd Yesd NoNoR languageR languageR languageNo
FUNCTIONALITIES
Specific for GAS meta-analysisNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes
HWE testingYesNoNoNoNoNoNoYes
Heterogeneity assessmentYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Random/Fixed effect modelsYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Forest plotYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Automatic testing of genetic modelsNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes
Publication biasYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYes
Subgroup analysisYesNoYesNoYesNoYesYes
Robustness analysisYesNoYesNoYesNoYesYes
P-value correction for multiple testingYesYesNoNoNoNoNoYes

aThere is a MIX free version with reduced capabilities. bMetaEasy is free, but it depends on the proprietary software Microsoft Excel. cMetaGenyo is accessed through an internet browser, so there are no limitations regarding the operating system used to access it. dAlthough STATA and SPSS are command-based software, there are graphical user interfaces (GUIs) available which permits replacing scripting by user-friendly interactive commands

Characteristics of available meta-analysis software aThere is a MIX free version with reduced capabilities. bMetaEasy is free, but it depends on the proprietary software Microsoft Excel. cMetaGenyo is accessed through an internet browser, so there are no limitations regarding the operating system used to access it. dAlthough STATA and SPSS are command-based software, there are graphical user interfaces (GUIs) available which permits replacing scripting by user-friendly interactive commands To demonstrate the functionality of MetaGenyo we have used data from a published GAS meta-analysis [24]. In this study, the authors performed a meta-analysis to study the association between the A23G SNP of XPA gene (rs1800975) and digestive cancers. They collected genotype information from 18 case-control studies including 4170 patients and 6929 controls in total. In this polymorphism, the G allele was considered the reference, so the A allele was the risk allele (this parameter must be specified in MetaGenyo). Results from the complete analysis and a comparison with results reported in the original article can be found in Additional file 1. Briefly, both sets of results are highly concordant, but in the original publication the authors did not correct the P-values for multiple testing or evaluated different genetic models as provided by MetaGenyo. We found some discrepancies between both sets of results due to use of inappropriate statistical tests or labeling mistakes, especially at the subgroup analysis step (see Additional file 1). Because MetaGenyo automatically performs all meta-analysis steps in a guided analysis we reduced these potential sources of errors. All these similarities and differences are detailed in Additional file 1. The application generated results for all possible genetic models and allowed us to easily evaluate results for different subgroups in a unified framework. In this context, using the tumor type feature to stratify the data revealed a significant association for the overdominant model in esophageal cancer studies not previously reported (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74–0.93, P-value = 0.0016, Bonferroni-adjusted P-value = 0.0448) [Fig. 2]. Although the original work reported no significant association between this polymorphism and the risk of any type of digestive cancer for the studied models, there may be a protective effect of AG genotype against the risk of esophageal tumors overlooked at the original article because the authors did not test this genetic model. Indeed, a similar association has been found in another GAS meta-analysis with lung cancer samples [25].
Fig. 2

Forest plot of esophageal cancer data generated with MetaGenyo. The tested comparison is AG vs. AA + AG (overdominant model) and FEM was used

Forest plot of esophageal cancer data generated with MetaGenyo. The tested comparison is AG vs. AA + AG (overdominant model) and FEM was used

Conclusions

In this work, we present MetaGenyo, a free easy-to-use web tool to perform GAS meta-analysis. It provides a guided workflow through the most important steps of a meta-analysis. We demonstrated MetaGenyo’s functionality replicating a previously published meta-analysis [24]. In addition, thanks to the automatic testing of several genetic models and subgroup analysis we found a significant association between rs1800975 SNP in XPA gene and esophageal cancer under the overdominant genetic model that may be interesting enough for further testing. Surprisingly, there is a large heterogeneity in statistical methods, lack of quality control steps or misleading reporting and interpretation of results in many published meta-analysis [9]. Therefore, an application such as MetaGenyo will be a very useful tool for the research community providing a guided and solid workflow.

Availability

Project name: MetaGenyo. Availability: MetaGenyo web tool, example datasets and help are accessible at http://bioinfo.genyo.es/metagenyo/. Any restrictions on use by academics: none.
  13 in total

Review 1.  Association study designs for complex diseases.

Authors:  L R Cardon; J I Bell
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 2.  Meta-analyses of molecular association studies: methodologic lessons for genetic epidemiology.

Authors:  John Attia; Ammarin Thakkinstian; Catherine D'Este
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in genetic association studies: an empirical evaluation of reporting, deviations, and power.

Authors:  Georgia Salanti; Georgia Amountza; Evangelia E Ntzani; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data.

Authors:  Leon Bax; Ly-Mee Yu; Noriaki Ikeda; Harukazu Tsuruta; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Graphical tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium based on the ternary plot.

Authors:  Jan Graffelman; Jair Morales Camarena
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 0.444

6.  Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Mike W-L Cheung
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 5.273

7.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: overlap and errors in the meta-analyses of microRNA genetic association studies in cancers.

Authors:  J H Park; M Eisenhut; H J van der Vliet; J I Shin
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 8.  Comprehensive literature review and statistical considerations for GWAS meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ferdouse Begum; Debashis Ghosh; George C Tseng; Eleanor Feingold
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 16.971

9.  XPA A23G polymorphism and risk of digestive system cancers: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lei He; Tao Deng; Hesheng Luo
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Christine Q Chang; Tram Kim Lam; Sheri D Schully; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  Genetic factors contributing to skeletal class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alexandra Dehesa-Santos; Paula Iber-Diaz; Alejandro Iglesias-Linares
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-02-07       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  A microRNA binding site polymorphism in the 3' UTR region of VEGF-A gene modifies colorectal cancer risk based on ethnicity: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sai Sushmitha Kontham; Charles Emmanuel Jebaraj Walter; Zioni Sangeetha Shankaran; Arvind Ramanathan; Nirmala Karuppasamy; Thanka Johnson
Journal:  J Egypt Natl Canc Inst       Date:  2022-04-25

3.  Lack of Impact of the A1298C MTHFR on the Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Evidence from a Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rim Frikha
Journal:  Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 0.900

4.  Relationship Between CASP9 and CASP10 Gene Polymorphisms and Cancer Susceptibility: Evidence from an Updated Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Saman Sargazi; Armin Zahedi Abghari; Hosna Sarani; Roghayeh Sheervalilou; Shekoufeh Mirinejad; Ramin Saravani; Ebrahim Eskandari
Journal:  Appl Biochem Biotechnol       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 2.926

5.  The association of toll-like receptor 4 gene polymorphisms with primary open angle glaucoma susceptibility: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Narttaya Chaiwiang; Teera Poyomtip
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Ten simple rules for carrying out and writing meta-analyses.

Authors:  Diego A Forero; Sandra Lopez-Leon; Yeimy González-Giraldo; Pantelis G Bagos
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Effects of angiotensin converting enzyme gene polymorphism on hypertension in Africa: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Hayelom Gebrekirstos Mengesha; Pammla Petrucka; Cara Spence; Tadesse Bekele Tafesse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The associations between Toll-like receptor 4 gene polymorphisms and hepatitis C virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Narttaya Chaiwiang; Teera Poyomtip
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 3.840

9.  TNFSF4 is a risk factor to systemic lupus erythematosus in a Latin American population.

Authors:  Mario Adán Moreno-Eutimio; Carmen Estefanía Martínez-Alemán; Ivan Sammir Aranda-Uribe; Guillermo Aquino-Jarquin; Carlos Cabello-Gutierrez; José Manuel Fragoso; Rosa Elda Barbosa-Cobos; Miguel A Saavedra; Julian Ramírez-Bello
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 10.  Association of IL-1Ra Ser133Ser Variant with Susceptibility to Immune-Mediated and Inflammatory Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of 2622 Cases and 3854 Controls.

Authors:  Mahdiyeh Harati-Sadegh; Saman Sargazi; Roghayeh Sheervalilou; Saeed Hosseini Teshnizi; Ramin Saravani; Shekoufeh Mirinejad
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.429

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.