Literature DB >> 33009504

Deep neural network improves the estimation of polygenic risk scores for breast cancer.

Adrien Badré1, Li Zhang2, Wellington Muchero3, Justin C Reynolds1, Chongle Pan4,5.   

Abstract

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) estimate the genetic risk of an individual for a complex disease based on many genetic variants across the whole genome. In this study, we compared a series of computational models for estimation of breast cancer PRS. A deep neural network (DNN) was found to outperform alternative machine learning techniques and established statistical algorithms, including BLUP, BayesA, and LDpred. In the test cohort with 50% prevalence, the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) were 67.4% for DNN, 64.2% for BLUP, 64.5% for BayesA, and 62.4% for LDpred. BLUP, BayesA, and LPpred all generated PRS that followed a normal distribution in the case population. However, the PRS generated by DNN in the case population followed a bimodal distribution composed of two normal distributions with distinctly different means. This suggests that DNN was able to separate the case population into a high-genetic-risk case subpopulation with an average PRS significantly higher than the control population and a normal-genetic-risk case subpopulation with an average PRS similar to the control population. This allowed DNN to achieve 18.8% recall at 90% precision in the test cohort with 50% prevalence, which can be extrapolated to 65.4% recall at 20% precision in a general population with 12% prevalence. Interpretation of the DNN model identified salient variants that were assigned insignificant p values by association studies, but were important for DNN prediction. These variants may be associated with the phenotype through nonlinear relationships.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33009504     DOI: 10.1038/s10038-020-00832-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1434-5161            Impact factor:   3.172


  13 in total

Review 1.  Body weight, fat storage, and alcohol metabolism.

Authors:  J P Flatt
Journal:  Nutr Rev       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 7.110

2.  Polygenic risk scores outperform machine learning methods in predicting coronary artery disease status.

Authors:  Damian Gola; Jeannette Erdmann; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Heribert Schunkert; Inke R König
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 3.  Evading apoptosis in cancer.

Authors:  Kaleigh Fernald; Manabu Kurokawa
Journal:  Trends Cell Biol       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 20.808

4.  Drosophila double parked: a conserved, essential replication protein that colocalizes with the origin recognition complex and links DNA replication with mitosis and the down-regulation of S phase transcripts.

Authors:  A J Whittaker; I Royzman; T L Orr-Weaver
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 11.361

5.  Can Deep Learning Improve Genomic Prediction of Complex Human Traits?

Authors:  Pau Bellot; Gustavo de Los Campos; Miguel Pérez-Enciso
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 6.  Targeting the DNA Damage Response in Cancer.

Authors:  Mark J O'Connor
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 7.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  MultiBLUP: improved SNP-based prediction for complex traits.

Authors:  Doug Speed; David J Balding
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 9.043

9.  NOS1 upregulates ABCG2 expression contributing to DDP chemoresistance in ovarian cancer cells.

Authors:  Xiaoxuan Li; Zhiwei Zou; Jiao Tang; Youhong Zheng; Yu Liu; Yan Luo; Qiuzhen Liu; Yifeng Wang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.967

10.  SNPnexus: assessing the functional relevance of genetic variation to facilitate the promise of precision medicine.

Authors:  Abu Z Dayem Ullah; Jorge Oscanoa; Jun Wang; Ai Nagano; Nicholas R Lemoine; Claude Chelala
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Genetic prediction of complex traits with polygenic scores: a statistical review.

Authors:  Ying Ma; Xiang Zhou
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 11.639

2.  GenNet framework: interpretable deep learning for predicting phenotypes from genetic data.

Authors:  Arno van Hilten; Steven A Kushner; Manfred Kayser; M Arfan Ikram; Hieab H H Adams; Caroline C W Klaver; Wiro J Niessen; Gennady V Roshchupkin
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-09-17

3.  Evaluation of tree-based statistical learning methods for constructing genetic risk scores.

Authors:  Michael Lau; Claudia Wigmann; Sara Kress; Tamara Schikowski; Holger Schwender
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  LINA: A Linearizing Neural Network Architecture for Accurate First-Order and Second-Order Interpretations.

Authors:  Adrien Badré; Chongle Pan
Journal:  IEEE Access       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 3.476

5.  Genomic Assessment of Cancer Susceptibility in the Threatened Catalina Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis catalinae).

Authors:  Sarah A Hendricks; Julie L King; Calvin L Duncan; Winston Vickers; Paul A Hohenlohe; Brian W Davis
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 4.141

6.  A Smoothed Version of the Lassosum Penalty for Fitting Integrated Risk Models Using Summary Statistics or Individual-Level Data.

Authors:  Georg Hahn; Dmitry Prokopenko; Sharon M Lutz; Kristina Mullin; Rudolph E Tanzi; Michael H Cho; Edwin K Silverman; Christoph Lange
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 4.096

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.