Poor Statistical Power in Population-based Association Study of Gene Interaction

Overview

Journal BMC Med Genomics

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Genetics

Date 2024 Apr 27

PMID 38678264

Authors

Jiarui Ma

Jian Li

Yuqi Chen

Zhen Yang

Yungang He

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Statistical epistasis, or "gene-gene interaction" in genetic association studies, means the nonadditive effects between the polymorphic sites on two different genes affecting the same phenotype. In the genetic association analysis of complex traits, nevertheless, the researchers haven't found enough clues of statistical epistasis so far.

Methods: We developed a statistical model where the statistical epistasis was presented as an extra linkage disequilibrium between the polymorphic sites of different risk genes. The power of statistical test for identifying the gene-gene interaction was calculated and then compared in different hypothesis scenarios.

Results: Our results show the statistical power increases with the increasing of interaction coefficient, relative risk, and linkage disequilibrium with genetic markers. However, the power of interaction discovery is much lower than that of regular single-site association test. When rigorous criteria were employed in statistical tests, the identification of gene-gene interaction became a very difficult task. Since the criterion of significance was given to be p-value ≤ 5.0 × 10, the same as that of many genome-wide association studies, there is little chance to identify the gene-gene interaction in all kind of circumstances.

Conclusions: The lack of epistasis tends to be an inevitable result caused by the statistical principles of methods in the genetic association studies and therefore is the inherent characteristic of the research itself.

References

Zhou F, Ren J, Lu X, Ma S, Wu C . Gene-Environment Interaction: A Variable Selection Perspective. Methods Mol Biol. 2021; 2212:191-223. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0947-7_13. View

Cordell H . Detecting gene-gene interactions that underlie human diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2009; 10(6):392-404. PMC: 2872761. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2579. View

Ueki M, Cordell H . Improved statistics for genome-wide interaction analysis. PLoS Genet. 2012; 8(4):e1002625. PMC: 3320596. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002625. View

Hansen T, Wagner G . Modeling genetic architecture: a multilinear theory of gene interaction. Theor Popul Biol. 2001; 59(1):61-86. DOI: 10.1006/tpbi.2000.1508. View

Lunetta K, Hayward L, Segal J, Van Eerdewegh P . Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests. BMC Genet. 2004; 5:32. PMC: 545646. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-5-32. View

Zhao J, Jin L, Xiong M . Test for interaction between two unlinked loci. Am J Hum Genet. 2006; 79(5):831-45. PMC: 1698572. DOI: 10.1086/508571. View

Hu J, Wang X, Wang P . Testing gene-gene interactions in genome wide association studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2014; 38(2):123-34. PMC: 4487553. DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21786. View

Cordell H . Epistasis: what it means, what it doesn't mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. Hum Mol Genet. 2002; 11(20):2463-8. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/11.20.2463. View

Chu M, Zhang R, Zhao Y, Wu C, Guo H, Zhou B . A genome-wide gene-gene interaction analysis identifies an epistatic gene pair for lung cancer susceptibility in Han Chinese. Carcinogenesis. 2013; 35(3):572-7. PMC: 3941747. DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgt400. View

10.

Gauderman W . Sample size requirements for matched case-control studies of gene-environment interaction. Stat Med. 2002; 21(1):35-50. DOI: 10.1002/sim.973. View

11.

Bertram L, McQueen M, Mullin K, Blacker D, Tanzi R . Systematic meta-analyses of Alzheimer disease genetic association studies: the AlzGene database. Nat Genet. 2006; 39(1):17-23. DOI: 10.1038/ng1934. View

12.

Boone C, Bussey H, Andrews B . Exploring genetic interactions and networks with yeast. Nat Rev Genet. 2007; 8(6):437-49. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2085. View

13.

Phillips P . Epistasis--the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems. Nat Rev Genet. 2008; 9(11):855-67. PMC: 2689140. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2452. View

14.

Mani R, St Onge R, Hartman 4th J, Giaever G, Roth F . Defining genetic interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(9):3461-6. PMC: 2265146. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0712255105. View

15.

Moore J, Williams S . Epistasis and its implications for personal genetics. Am J Hum Genet. 2009; 85(3):309-20. PMC: 2771593. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.08.006. View

16.

Simon S . Understanding the odds ratio and the relative risk. J Androl. 2001; 22(4):533-6. View

17.

Wei W, Hemani G, Haley C . Detecting epistasis in human complex traits. Nat Rev Genet. 2014; 15(11):722-33. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3747. View

18.

Cockerham C . An Extension of the Concept of Partitioning Hereditary Variance for Analysis of Covariances among Relatives When Epistasis Is Present. Genetics. 1954; 39(6):859-82. PMC: 1209694. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/39.6.859. View

19.

Nelson M, Kardia S, Ferrell R, Sing C . A combinatorial partitioning method to identify multilocus genotypic partitions that predict quantitative trait variation. Genome Res. 2001; 11(3):458-70. PMC: 311041. DOI: 10.1101/gr.172901. View

20.

Jasnos L, Korona R . Epistatic buffering of fitness loss in yeast double deletion strains. Nat Genet. 2007; 39(4):550-4. DOI: 10.1038/ng1986. View