Huanhuan Zhu1, Xiang Zhou1,2. 1. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 2. Center for Statistical Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Abstract
Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified thousands of genetic variants that are associated with many complex traits. However, their biological mechanisms remain largely unknown. Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have been recently proposed as an invaluable tool for investigating the potential gene regulatory mechanisms underlying variant-trait associations. Specifically, TWAS integrate GWAS with expression mapping studies based on a common set of variants and aim to identify genes whose GReX is associated with the phenotype. Various methods have been developed for performing TWAS and/or similar integrative analysis. Each such method has a different modeling assumption and many were initially developed to answer different biological questions. Consequently, it is not straightforward to understand their modeling property from a theoretical perspective. Results: We present a technical review on thirteen TWAS methods. Importantly, we show that these methods can all be viewed as two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, which has been widely applied in GWASs for examining the causal effects of exposure on outcome. Viewing different TWAS methods from an MR perspective provides us a unique angle for understanding their benefits and pitfalls. We systematically introduce the MR analysis framework, explain how features of the GWAS and expression data influence the adaptation of MR for TWAS, and re-interpret the modeling assumptions made in different TWAS methods from an MR angle. We finally describe future directions for TWAS methodology development. Conclusions: We hope that this review would serve as a useful reference for both methodologists who develop TWAS methods and practitioners who perform TWAS analysis.
Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified thousands of genetic variants that are associated with many complex traits. However, their biological mechanisms remain largely unknown. Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have been recently proposed as an invaluable tool for investigating the potential gene regulatory mechanisms underlying variant-trait associations. Specifically, TWAS integrate GWAS with expression mapping studies based on a common set of variants and aim to identify genes whose GReX is associated with the phenotype. Various methods have been developed for performing TWAS and/or similar integrative analysis. Each such method has a different modeling assumption and many were initially developed to answer different biological questions. Consequently, it is not straightforward to understand their modeling property from a theoretical perspective. Results: We present a technical review on thirteen TWAS methods. Importantly, we show that these methods can all be viewed as two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, which has been widely applied in GWASs for examining the causal effects of exposure on outcome. Viewing different TWAS methods from an MR perspective provides us a unique angle for understanding their benefits and pitfalls. We systematically introduce the MR analysis framework, explain how features of the GWAS and expression data influence the adaptation of MR for TWAS, and re-interpret the modeling assumptions made in different TWAS methods from an MR angle. We finally describe future directions for TWAS methodology development. Conclusions: We hope that this review would serve as a useful reference for both methodologists who develop TWAS methods and practitioners who perform TWAS analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
expression mapping studies; genome-wide association studies; transcriptome-wide association studies
Authors: Alkes L Price; Gregory V Kryukov; Paul I W de Bakker; Shaun M Purcell; Jeff Staples; Lee-Jen Wei; Shamil R Sunyaev Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Adaikalavan Ramasamy; Daniah Trabzuni; Sebastian Guelfi; Vibin Varghese; Colin Smith; Robert Walker; Tisham De; Lachlan Coin; Rohan de Silva; Mark R Cookson; Andrew B Singleton; John Hardy; Mina Ryten; Michael E Weale Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2014-08-31 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Tuuli Lappalainen; Michael Sammeth; Marc R Friedländer; Peter A C 't Hoen; Jean Monlong; Manuel A Rivas; Mar Gonzàlez-Porta; Natalja Kurbatova; Thasso Griebel; Pedro G Ferreira; Matthias Barann; Thomas Wieland; Liliana Greger; Maarten van Iterson; Jonas Almlöf; Paolo Ribeca; Irina Pulyakhina; Daniela Esser; Thomas Giger; Andrew Tikhonov; Marc Sultan; Gabrielle Bertier; Daniel G MacArthur; Monkol Lek; Esther Lizano; Henk P J Buermans; Ismael Padioleau; Thomas Schwarzmayr; Olof Karlberg; Halit Ongen; Helena Kilpinen; Sergi Beltran; Marta Gut; Katja Kahlem; Vyacheslav Amstislavskiy; Oliver Stegle; Matti Pirinen; Stephen B Montgomery; Peter Donnelly; Mark I McCarthy; Paul Flicek; Tim M Strom; Hans Lehrach; Stefan Schreiber; Ralf Sudbrak; Angel Carracedo; Stylianos E Antonarakis; Robert Häsler; Ann-Christine Syvänen; Gert-Jan van Ommen; Alvis Brazma; Thomas Meitinger; Philip Rosenstiel; Roderic Guigó; Ivo G Gut; Xavier Estivill; Emmanouil T Dermitzakis Journal: Nature Date: 2013-09-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nigus G Asefa; Zoha Kamali; Satyajit Pereira; Ahmad Vaez; Nomdo Jansonius; Arthur A Bergen; Harold Snieder Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.141
Authors: Zheng Li; Wei Zhao; Lulu Shang; Thomas H Mosley; Sharon L R Kardia; Jennifer A Smith; Xiang Zhou Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 11.043