首页> 外文期刊>BMC proceedings. >Pathway analysis following association study
【24h】

Pathway analysis following association study

机译:关联研究后的路径分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Genome-wide association studies often emphasize single-nucleotide polymorphisms with the smallest p -values with less attention given to single-nucleotide polymorphisms not ranked near the top. We suggest that gene pathways contain valuable information that can enable identification of additional associations. We used gene set information to identify disease-related pathways using three methods: gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), empirical enrichment p -values, and Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA). Association tests were performed for common single-nucleotide polymorphisms and aggregated rare variants with traits Q1 and Q4. These pathway methods were evaluated by type I error, power, and the ranking of the VEGF pathway, the gene set used in the simulation model. GSEA and IPA had high power for detecting the VEGF pathway for trait Q1 (91.2% and 93%, respectively). These two methods were conservative with deflated type I errors (0.0083 and 0.0072, respectively). The VEGF pathway ranked 1 or 2 in 123 of 200 replicates using IPA and ranked among the top 5 in 114 of 200 replicates for GSEA. The empirical enrichment method had lower power and higher type I error. Thus pathway analysis approaches may be useful in identifying biological pathways that influence disease outcomes.
机译:全基因组关联研究通常强调具有最小p值的单核苷酸多态性,而较少关注未排在首位的单核苷酸多态性。我们建议基因途径包含有价值的信息,可以使其他关联的标识。我们使用基因组信息通过以下三种方法来鉴定与疾病相关的途径:基因组富集分析(GSEA),经验性富集p值和独创性途径分析(IPA)。对常见的单核苷酸多态性和具有特征Q1和Q4的聚集的稀有变异体进行了关联测试。通过I型错误,功效和VEGF途径(模拟模型中使用的基因组)的等级对这些途径方法进行了评估。 GSEA和IPA具有检测Q1性状的VEGF途径的强大能力(分别为91.2%和93%)。这两种方法比较保守,但存在I型放气误差(分别为0.0083和0.0072)。 VEGF途径使用IPA在200个重复中的123个中排名1或2,在GSEA的200个重复中的114个中排名前5位。经验富集方法具有较低的功效和较高的I型误差。因此,途径分析方法可能有助于确定影响疾病结果的生物学途径。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号