An empirical comparison of meta-analysis and mega-analysis of individual participant data for identifying gene-environment interactions

Genetic Epidemiology

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 369-378

  Sung, Yun Ju ^a   Schwander, Karen ^a   Arnett, Donna K ^b   Kardia, Sharon L R ^c   Rankinen, Tuomo ^d   Bouchard, Claude ^d   Boerwinkle, Eric ^e   Hunt, Steven C ^f   Rao, Dabeeru C ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gene environment interactions (GEI); Mega analysis; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HERITABILITY; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM;

GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS (GEI); MEGA-ANALYSIS; META-ANALYSIS;

DIABETES MELLITUS; EXERCISE; GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HEALTH SURVEYS; HEART DISEASES; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84899112197     PISSN: 07410395     EISSN: 10982272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21800     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Aschard H, Lutz S, Maus B, Duell EJ, Fingerlin TE, Chatterjee N, Kraft P, Van Steen K. 2012. Challenges and opportunities in genome-wide environmental interaction (GWEI) studies. Hum Genet 131(10):1591-1613.
2. Aulchenko YS, Ripke S, Isaacs A, van Duijn CM. 2007. GenABEL: an R library for genome-wide association analysis. Bioinformatics 23(10):1294-1296.
3. Aulchenko YS, Struchalin MV, van Duijn CM. 2010. ProbABEL package for genome-wide association analysis of imputed data. BMC Bioinformatics 11:134.
4. Bouchard C, Leon AS, Rao DC, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Gagnon J. 1995. The HERITAGE family study. Aims, design, and measurement protocol. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27(5):721-729.
5. Chalmers I. 1993. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann NY Acad Sci 703:156-163.
6. Cochran WG. 1954. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10(1):101-129.
7. Daniels PR, Kardia SL, Hanis CL, Brown CA, Hutchinson R, Boerwinkle E, Turner ST, Genetic Epidemiology Network of Arteriopathy study. 2004. Familial aggregation of hypertension treatment and control in the Genetic Epidemiology Network of Arteriopathy (GENOA) study. Am J Med 116(10):676-681.
8. Dawber TR, Meadors GF, Moore FE, Jr. 1951. Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health Nations Health 41(3):279-281.
9. de Bakker PI, Ferreira MA, Jia X, Neale BM, Raychaudhuri S, Voight BF. 2008. Practical aspects of imputation-driven meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Hum Mol Genet 17(R2):R122-R128.
10. Eichler EE, Flint J, Gibson G, Kong A, Leal SM, Moore JH, Nadeau JH. 2010. Missing heritability and strategies for finding the underlying causes of complex disease. Nat Rev Genet 11(6):446-450.
11. Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. 2013. Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet 14(6):379-389.
12. Feinleib M, Kannel WB, Garrison RJ, McNamara PM, Castelli WP. 1975. The Framingham Offspring Study. Design and preliminary data. Prev Med 4(4):518-525.
13. Ganesh SK, Zakai NA, van Rooij FJ, Soranzo N, Smith AV, Nalls MA, Chen MH, Kottgen A, Glazer NL, Dehghan A, and others. 2009. Multiple loci influence erythrocyte phenotypes in the CHARGE Consortium. Nat Genet 41(11):1191-1198.
14. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. 2002. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539-1558.
15. Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. 2001. Meta-analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients. Stat Med 20(15):2219-2241.
16. Huber PJ. 1967. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proc Fifth Berkeley Symp on Math Statist and Prob 1:221-233.
17. International Consortium for Blood Pressure Genome-Wide Association S, Ehret GB, Munroe PB, Rice KM, Bochud M, Johnson AD, Chasman DI, Smith AV, Tobin MD, Verwoert GC, and others. 2011. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature 478(7367):103-109.
18. Kraft P, Yen YC, Stram DO, Morrison J, Gauderman WJ. 2007. Exploiting gene-environment interaction to detect genetic associations. Hum Hered 63(2):111-119.
19. Le Marchand L, Wilkens LR. 2008. Design considerations for genomic association studies: importance of gene-environment interactions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17(2):263-267.
20. Li Y, Willer CJ, Ding J, Scheet P, Abecasis GR. 2010. MaCH: using sequence and genotype data to estimate haplotypes and unobserved genotypes. Genet Epidemiol 34(8):816-834.
21. Liang KY, Zeger SL. 1986. Longitudinal data-analysis using generalized linear-models. Biometrika 73(1):13-22.
22. Lin DY, Zeng D. 2010a. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies: no efficiency gain in using individual participant data. Genet Epidemiol 34(1):60-66.
23. Lin DY, Zeng D. 2010b. On the relative efficiency of using summary statistics versus individual-level data in meta-analysis. Biometrika 97(2):321-332.
24. Manning AK, LaValley M, Liu CT, Rice K, An P, Liu Y, Miljkovic I, Rasmussen-Torvik L, Harris TB, Province MA, and others. 2011. Meta-analysis of gene-environment interaction: joint estimation of SNP and SNP x environment regression coefficients. Genet Epidemiol 35(1):11-18.
25. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, McCarthy MI, Ramos EM, Cardon LR, Chakravarti A, and others. 2009. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461(7265):747-753.
26. Mathew T, Nordström K. 1999. On the equivalence of meta-analysis using literature and using individual patient data. Biometrics 55(4):1221-1223.
27. McCarthy MI, Hirschhorn JN. 2008. Genome-wide association studies: potential next steps on a genetic journey. Hum Mol Genet 17(R2):R156-R165.
28. Olkin I, Sampson A. 1998. Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics 54(1):317-322.
29. Pereira TV, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JP. 2009. Discovery properties of genome-wide association signals from cumulatively combined data sets. Am J Epidemiol 170(10):1197-1206.
30. Pfeiffer R, Gail M, Pee D. 2009. On combining data from genome-wide association studies to discover disease-associated SNPs. Stat Sci 24(4):547-560.
31. Psaty BM, O'Donnell CJ, Gudnason V, Lunetta KL, Folsom AR, Rotter JI, Uitterlinden AG, Harris TB, Witteman JC, Boerwinkle E, and others. 2009. Cohorts for heart and aging research in genomic epidemiology (CHARGE) consortium: design of prospective meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies from 5 cohorts. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2(1):73-80.
32. Simpson EH. 1951. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. J Royal Stat Soc Series B 13(2):238-241.
33. Splansky GL, Corey D, Yang Q, Atwood LD, Cupples LA, Benjamin EJ, D'Agostino RB, Sr., Fox CS, Larson MG, Murabito JM, and others. 2007. The third generation cohort of the national heart, lung, and blood institute's framingham heart study: design, recruitment, and initial examination. Am J Epidemiol 165(11):1328-1335.
34. Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, Olkin I, Lee NC, Williamson GD, Thacker SB. 1997. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol 145(10):917-925.
35. Stewart LA, Clarke MJ. 1995. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med 14(19):2057-2079.
36. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. 2002. To IPD or not to IPD?: advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Professions 25(1):76-97.
37. Thomas D. 2010a. Gene-environment-wide association studies: emerging approaches. Nat Rev Genet 11(4):259-272.
38. Thomas D. 2010b. Gene-environment-wide association studies: emerging approaches. Nat Rev Genet 11(4):259-272.
39. Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, Yang J. 2012. Five years of GWAS discovery. Am J Hum Genet 90(1):7-24.
40. Voorman A, Lumley T, McKnight B, Rice K. 2011. Behavior of QQ-plots and genomic control in studies of gene-environment interaction. PLoS One 6(5):e19416.
41. Wagner CH. 1982. Simpson's Paradox in real life. Am Stat 36(1):46-48.
42. White H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance-matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817-838.
43. Willer CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR. 2010. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 26(17):2190-2191.
44. Willer CJ, Speliotes EK, Loos RJ, Li S, Lindgren CM, Heid IM, Berndt SI, Elliott AL, Jackson AU, Lamina C, and others. 2009. Six new loci associated with body mass index highlight a neuronal influence on body weight regulation. Nat Genet 41(1):25-34.
45. Williams RR, Rao DC, Ellison RC, Arnett DK, Heiss G, Oberman A, Eckfeldt JH, Leppert MF, Province MA, Mockrin SC, and others. 2000. NHLBI family blood pressure program: methodology and recruitment in the HyperGEN network. Hypertension genetic epidemiology network. Ann Epidemiol 10(6):389-400.
46. Zhou B, Shi J, Whittemore AS. 2011. Optimal methods for meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Genet Epidemiol 35(7):581-591.