Paper detail

Genome-wide association studies with high-dimensional phenotypes

High-dimensional phenotypes hold promise for richer findings in association studies, but testing of several phenotype traits aggravates the grand challenge of association studies, that of multiple testing. Several methods have recently been proposed for testing jointly all traits in a high-dimensional vector of phenotypes, with prospect of increased power to detect small effects that would be missed if tested individually. However, the methods have rarely been compared to the extent of enabling assessment of their relative merits and setting up guidelines on which method to use, and how to use it. We compare the methods on simulated data and with a real metabolomics data set comprising 137 highly correlated variables and approximately 550,000 SNPs. Applying the methods to genome-wide data with hundreds of thousands of markers inevitably requires division of the problem into manageable parts facilitating parallel processing, parts corresponding to individual genetic variants, pathways, or genes, for example. Here we utilize a straightforward formulation according to which the genome is divided into blocks of nearby correlated genetic markers, tested jointly for association with the phenotypes. This formulation is computationally feasible, reduces the number of tests, and lets the methods take advantage of combining information over several correlated variables not only on the phenotype side, but also on the genotype side. Our experiments show that canonical correlation analysis has higher power than alternative methods, while remaining computationally tractable for routine use in the GWAS setting, provided the number of samples is sufficient compared to the numbers of phenotype and genotype variables tested. Sparse canonical correlation analysis and regression models with latent confounding factors show promising performance when the number of samples is small.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.