Literature DB >> 33735170

Boosting GWAS using biological networks: A study on susceptibility to familial breast cancer.

Héctor Climente-González1,2,3,4, Christine Lonjou1,2,3, Fabienne Lesueur1,2,3, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet5,6,7, Nadine Andrieu1,2,3, Chloé-Agathe Azencott1,2,3.   

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) explore the genetic causes of complex diseases. However, classical approaches ignore the biological context of the genetic variants and genes under study. To address this shortcoming, one can use biological networks, which model functional relationships, to search for functionally related susceptibility loci. Many such network methods exist, each arising from different mathematical frameworks, pre-processing steps, and assumptions about the network properties of the susceptibility mechanism. Unsurprisingly, this results in disparate solutions. To explore how to exploit these heterogeneous approaches, we selected six network methods and applied them to GENESIS, a nationwide French study on familial breast cancer. First, we verified that network methods recovered more interpretable results than a standard GWAS. We addressed the heterogeneity of their solutions by studying their overlap, computing what we called the consensus. The key gene in this consensus solution was COPS5, a gene related to multiple cancer hallmarks. Another issue we observed was that network methods were unstable, selecting very different genes on different subsamples of GENESIS. Therefore, we proposed a stable consensus solution formed by the 68 genes most consistently selected across multiple subsamples. This solution was also enriched in genes known to be associated with breast cancer susceptibility (BLM, CASP8, CASP10, DNAJC1, FGFR2, MRPS30, and SLC4A7, P-value = 3 × 10-4). The most connected gene was CUL3, a regulator of several genes linked to cancer progression. Lastly, we evaluated the biases of each method and the impact of their parameters on the outcome. In general, network methods preferred highly connected genes, even after random rewirings that stripped the connections of any biological meaning. In conclusion, we present the advantages of network-guided GWAS, characterize their shortcomings, and provide strategies to address them. To compute the consensus networks, implementations of all six methods are available at https://github.com/hclimente/gwas-tools.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33735170      PMCID: PMC8009366          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008819

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol        ISSN: 1553-734X            Impact factor:   4.475


  56 in total

1.  Immunohistochemical expression of extracellular matrix components tenascin, fibronectin, collagen type IV and laminin in breast cancer: their prognostic value and role in tumour invasion and progression.

Authors:  E Ioachim; A Charchanti; E Briasoulis; V Karavasilis; H Tsanou; D L Arvanitis; N J Agnantis; N Pavlidis
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  VEGAS2: Software for More Flexible Gene-Based Testing.

Authors:  Aniket Mishra; Stuart Macgregor
Journal:  Twin Res Hum Genet       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 1.587

3.  The fickle P value generates irreproducible results.

Authors:  Lewis G Halsey; Douglas Curran-Everett; Sarah L Vowler; Gordon B Drummond
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 28.547

4.  The 5p12 breast cancer susceptibility locus affects MRPS30 expression in estrogen-receptor positive tumors.

Authors:  David A Quigley; Elisa Fiorito; Silje Nord; Peter Van Loo; Grethe Grenaker Alnæs; Thomas Fleischer; Jorg Tost; Hans Kristian Moen Vollan; Trine Tramm; Jens Overgaard; Ida R Bukholm; Antoni Hurtado; Allan Balmain; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Vessela Kristensen
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 6.603

5.  Cul3 overexpression depletes Nrf2 in breast cancer and is associated with sensitivity to carcinogens, to oxidative stress, and to chemotherapy.

Authors:  Martin Loignon; Weimin Miao; Lianggao Hu; Andrew Bier; Tarek A Bismar; P James Scrivens; Koren Mann; Mark Basik; Amélie Bouchard; Pierre O Fiset; Zachary Batist; Gerald Batist
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 6.261

Review 6.  10 Years of GWAS Discovery: Biology, Function, and Translation.

Authors:  Peter M Visscher; Naomi R Wray; Qian Zhang; Pamela Sklar; Mark I McCarthy; Matthew A Brown; Jian Yang
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Broker genes in human disease.

Authors:  James J Cai; Elhanan Borenstein; Dmitri A Petrov
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2010-10-11       Impact factor: 3.416

8.  Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets.

Authors:  Christopher C Chang; Carson C Chow; Laurent Cam Tellier; Shashaank Vattikuti; Shaun M Purcell; James J Lee
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 6.524

9.  Newly discovered breast cancer susceptibility loci on 3p24 and 17q23.2.

Authors:  Shahana Ahmed; Gilles Thomas; Maya Ghoussaini; Catherine S Healey; Manjeet K Humphreys; Radka Platte; Jonathan Morrison; Melanie Maranian; Karen A Pooley; Robert Luben; Diana Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Julian Peto; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman; Kevin Jacobs; Ross Prentice; Garnet L Anderson; Aleksandar Rajkovic; J David Curb; Regina G Ziegler; Christine D Berg; Saundra S Buys; Catherine A McCarty; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Eugenia E Calle; Michael J Thun; W Ryan Diver; Stig Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Henrik Flyger; Thilo Dörk; Peter Schürmann; Peter Hillemanns; Johann H Karstens; Natalia V Bogdanova; Natalia N Antonenkova; Iosif V Zalutsky; Marina Bermisheva; Sardana Fedorova; Elza Khusnutdinova; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; Peter Devilee; Christi J van Asperen; R A E M Tollenaar; Caroline Seynaeve; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise Brinton; Beata Peplonska; Heli Nevanlinna; Tuomas Heikkinen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Letitia Smith; Amanda B Spurdle; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Richard R van Hien; Sten Cornelissen; Roger L Milne; Gloria Ribas; Anna González-Neira; Javier Benitez; Rita K Schmutzler; Barbara Burwinkel; Claus R Bartram; Alfons Meindl; Hiltrud Brauch; Christina Justenhoven; Ute Hamann; Jenny Chang-Claude; Rebecca Hein; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Janet E Olson; Xianshu Wang; Zachary Fredericksen; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Laura Baglietto; Dallas R English; Susan E Hankinson; David G Cox; Peter Kraft; Lars J Vatten; Kristian Hveem; Merethe Kumle; Alice Sigurdson; Michele Doody; Parveen Bhatti; Bruce H Alexander; Maartje J Hooning; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Rogier A Oldenburg; Mieke Schutte; Per Hall; Kamila Czene; Jianjun Liu; Yuqing Li; Angela Cox; Graeme Elliott; Ian Brock; Malcolm W R Reed; Chen-Yang Shen; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Giu-Cheng Hsu; Shou-Tung Chen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Jonathan Beesley; Ellen L Goode; Fergus Couch; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Robert N Hoover; Bruce A J Ponder; David J Hunter; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Stephen J Chanock; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2009-03-29       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  HINT: High-quality protein interactomes and their applications in understanding human disease.

Authors:  Jishnu Das; Haiyuan Yu
Journal:  BMC Syst Biol       Date:  2012-07-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.