An integrated approach to reduce the impact of minor allele frequency and linkage disequilibrium on variable importance measures for genome-wide data

Bioinformatics

Volumn 28, Issue 20, 2012, Pages 2615-2623

  Walters, Raymond ^a   Laurin, Charles ^a   Lubke, Gitta H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; EVALUATION; GENE FREQUENCY; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM;

ALGORITHMS; GENE FREQUENCY; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HUMANS; LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE;

EID: 84870416715     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts483     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Annitage, P. (1955) Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics, 11, 375-386.
2. Ayers, K.L. and Cordell, HJ. (2010) SNP selection in genome-wide and candidate gene studies via penalized logistic regression. Genet. Epidemiol, 34, 879-891.
3. Barrett, J.C. et al (2005) Haploview: analysis and visualization of LD and haplotype maps. Bioinformatics, 21, 263-265.
4. Biswas, A. and Hwang, J. (2002) A new bivariate binomial distribution. Stat. Probab. Lett., 60, 231-240.
5. Boulesteix, A. et al. (2011) Random forest Gini importance favours SNPs with large minor allele frequency: impact, sources and recommendations. Brief. Bioinform, 13, 292-304.
6. Breiman, L. (2001) Random forests. Mach. Learn., 45, 5-32.
7. Breiman, L. (2002). Manual on setting up, using, and understanding random forests v3.1. http://oz.berkeley.edU/users/breiman/Using-random-forests-V3.l. pdf
8. Bureau, A. et al. (2005) Identifying SNPs predictive of phenotype using random forests. Genet. Epidemiol, 28, 171-182.
9. Caruana, R. and Niculescu-Mizil, A. (2006) An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'06). ACM, New York.
10. Clopper, C. and Pearson, E. (1934) The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika, 26, 404-413.
11. Frazer, K.A. et al (2009) Human genetic variation and its contribution to complex traits. Nat. Rev. Genet., 10, 241-251.
12. Friedman, J.H. (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Statist., 29(5), 1189-1232.
13. Friedman, M. (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Ass., 32(200), 675-701.
14. Garcia-Magarinos, M. et al. (2009) Evaluating the ability of tree-based methods and logistic regression for the detection of SNP-SNP interaction. Ann. Hum. Genet., 73, 360-369.
15. Goldstein, B.A. et al (2010) An application of random forests to a genome-wide association dataset: methodological considerations & new findings. BMC Genet., 11, 49.
16. Hastie, T. et al (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2nd edn. Springer, New York.
17. He, Q. and Lin, D. (2011) A variable selection method for genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics, 27(1), 1-8.
18. Kruskal, W.H. and Wallis, W.A. (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Ass., 47, 583-621.
19. Li, J. et al (2011a) The Bayesian lasso for genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics, 27, 516-523.
20. Li, J. et al (201 lb) Detecting epistatic effects in association studies at a genomic level based on an ensemble approach. Bioinformatics, 27, i222-i229.
21. Liaw, A. and Wiener, M. (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News, 2, 18-22.
22. Lunetta, K.L. et al (2004) Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests. BMC Genet., 5, 32.
23. Maher, B. (2008) Personal genomes: the case of the missing heritability. Nature, 456, 18-21.
24. Manolio, T.A. et al (2009) Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature, 461, 747-753.
25. McCarthy, M.I. et al (2008) Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat. Rev. Genet., 9, 356-369.
26. Medland, S. et al (2009) Common variants in the Trichohyalin gene are associated with straight hair in Europeans. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 85, 750-755.
27. Meng, Y.A. et al (2009) Performance of random forest when SNPs are in linkage disequilibrium. BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 78.
28. Moore, J.H. (2003) The ubiquitous nature of epistasis in determining susceptibility to common human diseases. Hum. Hered., 56, 73-82.
29. Nicodemus, K.K. and Malley, J.D. (2009) Predictor correlation impacts machine learning algorithms: implications for genomic studies. Bioinformatics, 25, 1884-1890.
30. Nonyane, B. and Foulkes, A.S. (2008) Application of two machine learning algorithms to genetic association studies in the presence of covariates. BMC Genet., 9, 71.
31. Ogutu, J.O. et al (2011) A comparison of random forests, boosting and support vector machines for genomic selection. BMC Proc, 5(Suppl 3), Sil.
32. Park, J. et al (2010) Estimation of effect size distribution from genome-wide association studies and implications for future discoveries. Nat. Genet., 42, 570-575.
33. Park, J. et al (2011) Distribution of allele frequencies and effect sizes and their interrelationships for common genetic susceptibility variants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sei. U.S.A., 108, 18026-18031.
34. R Development Core Team. (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
35. Ridgeway, G (2010) GBM: Generalized boosted regression models. R package version 1.6-3.1.
36. Ritchie, M.D. et al (2001) Multifactor-dimensionality reduction reveals high-order interactions among estrogen-metabolism genes in sporadic breast cancer. Am. J, Hum. Genet., 69, 138-147.
37. Roshan, U. et al (2011) Ranking causal variants and associated regions in genome-wide association studies by the support vector machine and random forest. Nucleic Acids Res., 39, e62.
38. Sandri, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2008) A bias correction algorithm for the Gini variable importance measure in classification trees. J. Comp. Graph. Stat., 17, 611-628.
39. Sandri, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2010) Analysis and correction of bias in total decrease in node impurity measures for tree-based algorithms. Stat Comput, 20, 393-407.
40. Shabalin, A.A. (2012) Matrix eQTL: ultra fast eQTL analysis via large matrix operations. Bioinformatics, 28, 1353-1358.
41. So, H. et al (2011) Uncovering the total heritability explained by all true susceptibility variants in a genome-wide association study. Genet. Epidemiol, 35, 447-456.
42. Strobl, C. et al (2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinform., 8, 25.
43. Strobl, C. et al (2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinform., 9, 307.
44. Szymczak, S. et al (2009) Machine learning in genome-wide association studies. Genet. Epidemiol, 33(Suppl 1), S51-S57.
45. Tibshirani, R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat, Soc. Ser. B., 58, 267-288.
46. Wang, M. et al (2009) Detecting significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms in a rheumatoid arthritis study using random forests. BMC Proc, 3(Suppl 7), S69.
47. Wang, W.Y. et al (2005) Genome-wide association studies: theoretical and practical concerns. Nat. Rev. Genet., 6, 109-118.
48. Wang, Y. et al (2011) An empirical comparison of several recent epistatic interaction detection methods. Bioinformatics, 27, 2936-2943.
49. Wu, J. et al (2010) Screen and clean: a tool for identifying interactions in genome-wide association studies. Genet. Epidemiol, 34, 275-285.
50. Yang, J. et al (2010) Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat. Genet., 42, 565-571.
51. Ziegler, A. and Konig, I.R. (2010) A Statistical Approach to Genetic Epidemiology: Concepts and Applications. 2nd edn. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany.