Literature DB >> 32511796

Assessing exposure effects on gene expression.

Sarah A Reifeis1, Michael G Hudgens1, Mete Civelek2, Karen L Mohlke3, Michael I Love1,3.   

Abstract

In observational genomics data sets, there is often confounding of the effect of an exposure on gene expression. To adjust for confounding when estimating the exposure effect, a common approach involves including potential confounders as covariates with the exposure in a regression model of gene expression. However, when the exposure and confounders interact to influence gene expression, the fitted regression model does not necessarily estimate the overall effect of the exposure. Using inverse probability weighting (IPW) or the parametric g-formula in these instances is straightforward to apply and yields consistent effect estimates. IPW can readily be integrated into a genomics data analysis pipeline with upstream data processing and normalization, while the g-formula can be implemented by making simple alterations to the regression model. The regression, IPW, and g-formula approaches to exposure effect estimation are compared herein using simulations; advantages and disadvantages of each approach are explored. The methods are applied to a case study estimating the effect of current smoking on gene expression in adipose tissue.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  confounding; inverse probability weighting; observational genomics; parametric g-formula; regression

Year:  2020        PMID: 32511796      PMCID: PMC7429346          DOI: 10.1002/gepi.22324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Epidemiol        ISSN: 0741-0395            Impact factor:   2.135


  30 in total

1.  Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology.

Authors:  J M Robins; M A Hernán; B Brumback
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Missing confounding data in marginal structural models: a comparison of inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation.

Authors:  Erica E M Moodie; Joseph A C Delaney; Geneviève Lefebvre; Robert W Platt
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  Use of within-array replicate spots for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments.

Authors:  Gordon K Smyth; Joëlle Michaud; Hamish S Scott
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2005-01-18       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  Bayesian analysis of RNA sequencing data by estimating multiple shrinkage priors.

Authors:  Mark A Van De Wiel; Gwenaël G R Leday; Luba Pardo; Håvard Rue; Aad W Van Der Vaart; Wessel N Van Wieringen
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  What if we ignore the random effects when analyzing RNA-seq data in a multifactor experiment.

Authors:  Shiqi Cui; Tieming Ji; Jilong Li; Jianlin Cheng; Jing Qiu
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2016-04

6.  Using probabilistic estimation of expression residuals (PEER) to obtain increased power and interpretability of gene expression analyses.

Authors:  Oliver Stegle; Leopold Parts; Matias Piipari; John Winn; Richard Durbin
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 13.491

7.  Principled Approaches to Missing Data in Epidemiologic Studies.

Authors:  Neil J Perkins; Stephen R Cole; Ofer Harel; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; BaoLuo Sun; Emily M Mitchell; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Generalizing Evidence from Randomized Trials using Inverse Probability of Sampling Weights.

Authors:  Ashley L Buchanan; Michael G Hudgens; Stephen R Cole; Katie R Mollan; Paul E Sax; Eric S Daar; Adaora A Adimora; Joseph J Eron; Michael J Mugavero
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 2.483

9.  voom: Precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts.

Authors:  Charity W Law; Yunshun Chen; Wei Shi; Gordon K Smyth
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 13.583

10.  G-computation of average treatment effects on the treated and the untreated.

Authors:  Aolin Wang; Roch A Nianogo; Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  2 in total

1.  Inverse probability weighting is an effective method to address selection bias during the analysis of high dimensional data.

Authors:  Patrick M Carry; Lauren A Vanderlinden; Fran Dong; Teresa Buckner; Elizabeth Litkowski; Timothy Vigers; Jill M Norris; Katerina Kechris
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 2.344

2.  On Variance of the Treatment Effect in the Treated When Estimated by Inverse Probability Weighting.

Authors:  Sarah A Reifeis; Michael G Hudgens
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 5.363

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.