Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis

被引:54
|
作者
Shang, Junliang [1 ]
Zhang, Junying [1 ]
Sun, Yan [2 ]
Liu, Dan [1 ]
Ye, Daojun [1 ]
Yin, Yaling [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Xidian Univ, Sch Comp Sci & Technol, Xian 710071, Peoples R China
[2] Shannxi Peoples Fine Arts Publishing House, Xian 710003, Peoples R China
[3] Xian Econ & Financial Univ, Informat Sch, Xian 710100, Peoples R China
来源
BMC BIOINFORMATICS | 2011年 / 12卷
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
MULTIFACTOR-DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION; GENE-GENE INTERACTIONS; ASSOCIATION; INFERENCE; POWER;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2105-12-475
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Background: Epistasis is recognized fundamentally important for understanding the mechanism of disease-causing genetic variation. Though many novel methods for detecting epistasis have been proposed, few studies focus on their comparison. Undertaking a comprehensive comparison study is an urgent task and a pathway of the methods to real applications. Results: This paper aims at a comparison study of epistasis detection methods through applying related software packages on datasets. For this purpose, we categorize methods according to their search strategies, and select five representative methods (TEAM, BOOST, SNPRuler, AntEpiSeeker and epiMODE) originating from different underlying techniques for comparison. The methods are tested on simulated datasets with different size, various epistasis models, and with/without noise. The types of noise include missing data, genotyping error and phenocopy. Performance is evaluated by detection power (three forms are introduced), robustness, sensitivity and computational complexity. Conclusions: None of selected methods is perfect in all scenarios and each has its own merits and limitations. In terms of detection power, AntEpiSeeker performs best on detecting epistasis displaying marginal effects (eME) and BOOST performs best on identifying epistasis displaying no marginal effects (eNME). In terms of robustness, AntEpiSeeker is robust to all types of noise on eME models, BOOST is robust to genotyping error and phenocopy on eNME models, and SNPRuler is robust to phenocopy on eME models and missing data on eNME models. In terms of sensitivity, AntEpiSeeker is the winner on eME models and both SNPRuler and BOOST perform well on eNME models. In terms of computational complexity, BOOST is the fastest among the methods. In terms of overall performance, AntEpiSeeker and BOOST are recommended as the efficient and effective methods. This comparison study may provide guidelines for applying the methods and further clues for epistasis detection.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis
    Junliang Shang
    Junying Zhang
    Yan Sun
    Dan Liu
    Daojun Ye
    Yaling Yin
    BMC Bioinformatics, 12
  • [2] Novel methods for detecting epistasis in pharmacogenomics studies
    Motsinger, Alison A.
    Ritchie, Marylyn D.
    Reif, David M.
    PHARMACOGENOMICS, 2007, 8 (09) : 1229 - 1241
  • [3] Methods for detecting epistasis using affected sib pairs.
    Holmans, P
    Rice, J
    MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY, 1999, 4 : S11 - S11
  • [4] A Novel Approach to Detecting Epistasis using Random Sampling Regularisation
    Hind, Jade
    Lisboa, Paulo
    Hussain, Abir
    Al-Jumeily, Dhiya
    IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY AND BIOINFORMATICS, 2020, 17 (05) : 1535 - 1545
  • [5] Analysis on Measuring Performance of Three Flicker Detecting Methods
    Chen, Qing
    Jia, Xiufang
    Zhao, Chengyong
    2009 IEEE POWER & ENERGY SOCIETY GENERAL MEETING, VOLS 1-8, 2009, : 1332 - 1338
  • [6] Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS
    Chatelain, Clement
    Durand, Guillermo
    Thuillier, Vincent
    Auge, Franck
    BMC BIOINFORMATICS, 2018, 19
  • [7] Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS
    Clément Chatelain
    Guillermo Durand
    Vincent Thuillier
    Franck Augé
    BMC Bioinformatics, 19
  • [8] Detecting Pleiotropy and Epistasis Using Variance Components Linkage Analysis in jPAP
    Hasstedt, Sandra J.
    Thomas, Alun
    HUMAN HEREDITY, 2011, 72 (04) : 258 - 263
  • [9] Detecting epistasis in human complex traits
    Wen-Hua Wei
    Gibran Hemani
    Chris S. Haley
    Nature Reviews Genetics, 2014, 15 : 722 - 733
  • [10] Detecting epistasis via Markov bases
    Malaspinas, Anna-Sapfo
    Uhler, Caroline
    JOURNAL OF ALGEBRAIC STATISTICS, 2011, 2 (01) : 36 - 53