Effectively Identifying eQTLs from Multiple Tissues by Combining Mixed Model and Meta-analytic Approaches

English version České info

Gene expression data, in conjunction with information on genetic variants, have enabled studies to identify expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) or polymorphic locations in the genome that are associated with expression levels. Moreover, recent technological developments and cost decreases have further enabled studies to collect expression data in multiple tissues. One advantage of multiple tissue datasets is that studies can combine results from different tissues to identify eQTLs more accurately than examining each tissue separately. The idea of aggregating results of multiple tissues is closely related to the idea of meta-analysis which aggregates results of multiple genome-wide association studies to improve the power to detect associations. In principle, meta-analysis methods can be used to combine results from multiple tissues. However, eQTLs may have effects in only a single tissue, in all tissues, or in a subset of tissues with possibly different effect sizes. This heterogeneity in terms of effects across multiple tissues presents a key challenge to detect eQTLs. In this paper, we develop a framework that leverages two popular meta-analysis methods that address effect size heterogeneity to detect eQTLs across multiple tissues. We show by using simulations and multiple tissue data from mouse that our approach detects many eQTLs undetected by traditional eQTL methods. Additionally, our method provides an interpretation framework that accurately predicts whether an eQTL has an effect in a particular tissue.

Vyšlo v časopise: Effectively Identifying eQTLs from Multiple Tissues by Combining Mixed Model and Meta-analytic Approaches. PLoS Genet 9(6): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003491
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003491

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. BremRB, YvertG, ClintonR, KruglyakL (2002) Genetic dissection of transcriptional regulation in budding yeast. Science 296: 752–5.

2. BremRB, KruglyakL (2005) The landscape of genetic complexity across 5,700 gene expression traits in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 1572–7.

3. KeurentjesJJB, FuJ, TerpstraIR, GarciaJM, van den AckervekenG, et al. (2007) Regulatory network construction in arabidopsis by using genome-wide gene expression quantitative trait loci. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 1708–13.

4. CheslerEJ, LuL, ShouS, QuY, GuJ, et al. (2005) Complex trait analysis of gene expression uncovers polygenic and pleiotropic networks that modulate nervous system function. Nat Genet 37: 233–42.

5. BystrykhL, WeersingE, DontjeB, SuttonS, PletcherMT, et al. (2005) Uncovering regulatory pathways that affect hematopoietic stem cell function using ‘genetical genomics’. Nat Genet 37: 225–32.

6. CheungVG, SpielmanRS, EwensKG, WeberTM, MorleyM, et al. (2005) Mapping determinants of human gene expression by regional and genome-wide association. Nature 437: 1365–9.

7. StrangerBE, NicaAC, ForrestMS, DimasA, BirdCP, et al. (2007) Population genomics of human gene expression. Nat Genet 39: 1217–24.

8. EmilssonV, ThorleifssonG, ZhangB, LeonardsonAS, ZinkF, et al. (2008) Genetics of gene expression and its effect on disease. Nature 452: 423–8.

9. SpielmanRS, BastoneLA, BurdickJT, MorleyM, EwensWJ, et al. (2007) Common genetic variants account for differences in gene expression among ethnic groups. Nat Genet 39: 226–31.

10. FuJ, WolfsMGM, DeelenP, WestraHJJ, FehrmannRSN, et al. (2012) Unraveling the regulatory mechanisms underlying tissue-dependent genetic variation of gene expression. PLoS Genet 8: e1002431.

11. de BakkerPIW, FerreiraMAR, JiaX, NealeBM, RaychaudhuriS, et al. (2008) Practical aspects of imputation-driven meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Hum Mol Genet 17: R122–8.

12. COCHRANWG (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments. BIOMETRICS 10: 101–129.

13. MANTELN, HAENSZELW (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: 719–48.

14. DerSimonianR, LairdN (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7: 177–88.

15. IoannidisJPA, PatsopoulosNA, EvangelouE (2007) Heterogeneity in meta-analyses of genome-wide association investigations. PLoS One 2: e841.

16. IoannidisJPA, PatsopoulosNA, EvangelouE (2007) Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in metaanalyses. BMJ 335: 914–6.

17. EvangelouE, MaraganoreDM, IoannidisJPA (2007) Meta-analysis in genome-wide association datasets: strategies and application in parkinson disease. PLoS One 2: e196.

18. HanB, EskinE (2011) Random-effects model aimed at discovering associations in meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Am J Hum Genet 88: 586–98.

19. HanB, EskinE (2012) Interpreting meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 8: e1002555.

20. HigginsJ, ThompsonSG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine 21: 1539–1558.

21. StoreyJD (2002) A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 64: 479–498.

22. PetrettoE, BottoloL, LangleySR, HeinigM, McDermott-RoeC, et al. (2010) New insights into the genetic control of gene expression using a bayesian multi-tissue approach. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000737.

23. KimS, XingEP (2009) Statistical estimation of correlated genome associations to a quantitative trait network. PLoS Genet 5: e1000587.

24. HooperM, HardyK, HandysideA, HunterS, MonkM (1987) Hprt-deficient (lesch-nyhan) mouse embryos derived from germline colonization by cultured cells. Nature 326: 292–5.

25. PetkovPM, DingY, CassellMA, ZhangW, WagnerG, et al. (2004) An efficient snp system for mouse genome scanning and elucidating strain relationships. Genome Res 14: 1806–11.

26. KangHM, ZaitlenNA, WadeCM, KirbyA, HeckermanD, et al. (2008) Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping. Genetics 178: 1709–23.

27. FleissJL (1993) The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 2: 121–45.

28. HARDYRJ, THOMPSONSG (1996) A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Statistics in Medicine 15: 619–629.

29. HanB, SulJH, EskinE, de BakkerPIW, RaychaudhuriS (2013) A general framework for meta-analyzing dependent studies with overlapping subjects in association mapping. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.8045.

30. LinDYY, SullivanPF (2009) Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies with overlapping subjects. Am J Hum Genet 85: 862–72.

31. StephensM, BaldingDJ (2009) Bayesian statistical methods for genetic association studies. Nat Rev Genet 10: 681–90.

32. MarchiniJ, HowieB, MyersS, McVeanG, DonnellyP (2007) A new multipoint method for genome-wide association studies by imputation of genotypes. Nat Genet 39: 906–13.