A random forest approach to capture genetic effects in the presence of population structure

Nature Communications

Volumn 6, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Stephan, Johannes ^a,b   Stegle, Oliver ^b   Beyer, Andreas ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; EPISTASIS; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HERITABILITY; MODEL TEST; NONLINEARITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLYMORPHISM; POPULATION STRUCTURE; RODENT; SIMULATION;

ARTICLE; EPISTASIS; GENE LOCUS; GENE MAPPING; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENOTYPE; HEREDITY; LINEAR MIXED MODEL; LINEAR SYSTEM; MIXED RANDOM FOREST; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; OUTBRED MOUSE STRAIN; PHENOTYPE; PHENOTYPIC VARIATION; POPULATION STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; RANDOM FOREST; SIMULATION; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; MICE; MODELS, GENETIC; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

EID: 84933056006     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8432     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Kang, H. M. et al. Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping. Genetics 178, 1709-1723 (2008).
2. Lippert, C. et al. FaST linear mixed models for genome-wide association studies. Nat. Methods 8, 833-835 (2011).
3. Zhou, X. & Stephens, M. Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies. Nat. Genet. 44, 821-824 (2012).
4. Yu, J. et al. A unified mixed-model method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness. Nat. Methods 38, 203-208 (2006).
5. Gilmour, A. R., Thompson, R. & Cullis, B. R. Average information reml: An efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics 51, 1440-1450 (1995).
6. Wang, C., Rutledge, J. & Gianola, D. Bayesian analysis of mixed linear models via gibbs sampling with an application to litter size in iberian pigs. Genet. Sel. Evol. 26, 91-115 (1994).
7. Jamrozik, J. & Schaeffer, L. Estimates of genetic parameters for a test day model with random regressions for yield traits of first lactation holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 80, 762-770 (1997).
8. Fusi, N., Stegle, O. & Lawrence, N. D. Joint modelling of confounding factors and prominent genetic regulators provides increased accuracy in genetical genomics studies. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002330 (2012).
9. Kang, H. M. et al. Variance component model to account for sample structure in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 42, 348-354 (2010).
10. Michaelson, J., Alberts, R., Schughart, K. & Beyer, A. Data-driven assessment of eqtl mapping methods. BMC Genomics 11, 502 (2010).
11. Bloom, J. S., Ehrenreich, I. M., Loo, W. T., Lite, T.-L. V. & Kruglyak, L. Finding the sources of missing heritability in a yeast cross. Nature 494, 234-237 (2013).
12. Zuk, O., Hechter, E., Sunyaev, S. R. & Lander, E. S. The mystery of missing heritability: genetic interactions create phantom heritability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109, 1193-1198 (2012).
13. Ritchie, M. D. et al. Multifactor-dimensionality reduction reveals high-order interactions among estrogen-metabolism genes in sporadic breast cancer. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69, 138-147 (2001).
14. Musani, S. K. et al. Detection of gene gene interactions in genome-wide association studies of human population data. Hum. Hered. 63, 67-84 (2007).
15. Hemani, G. et al. Detection and replication of epistasis influencing transcription in humans. Nature 508, 249-253 (2014).
16. Segura, V. et al. An efficient multi-locus mixed-model approach for genomewide association studies in structured populations. Nat. Genet. 44, 825-830 (2012).
17. Rakitsch, B., Lippert, C., Stegle, O. & Borgwardt, K. A lasso multi-marker mixed model for association mapping with population structure correction. Bioinformatics 29, 206-214 (2013).
18. George, A. W., Visscher, P. M. & Haley, C. S. Mapping quantitative trait loci in complex pedigrees: a two-step variance component approach. Genetics 156, 2081-2092 (2000).
19. Foster, S. D., Verbyla, A. P. & Pitchford, W. S. Incorporating lasso effects into a mixed model for quantitative trait loci detection. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 12, 300-314 (2007).
20. Wu, M. C. et al. Rare-variant association testing for sequencing data with the sequence kernel association test. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 89, 82-93 (2011).
21. Lippert, C. et al. An exhaustive epistatic snp association analysis on expanded wellcome trust data. Sci. Rep. 3, 1099 (2013).
22. Stich, B. et al. Power to detect higher-order epistatic interactions in a metabolic pathway using a new mapping strategy. Genetics 176, 563-570 (2007).
23. Ritchie, M. D. Using biological knowledge to uncover the mystery in the search for epistasis in genome-wide association studies. Ann. Hum. Genet. 75, 172-182 (2011).
24. Mott, R. & Flint, J. Simultaneous detection and fine mapping of quantitative trait loci in mice using heterogeneous stocks. Genetics 160, 1609-1618 (2002).
25. Carlborg, O. et al. A global search reveals epistatic interaction between qtl for early growth in the chicken. Genome Res. 13, 413-421 (2003).
26. Broman, K. W. & Speed, T. P. A model selection approach for the identification of quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 64, 641-656 (2002).
27. Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Machine Learn. 24, 123-140 (1996).
28. Breiman, L. Random forests. Machine Learn. 45, 5-32 (2001).
29. Motsinger-Reif, A. A., Reif, D. M., Fanelli, T. J. & Ritchie, M. D. A comparison of analytical methods for genetic association studies. Genet. Epidemiol. 32, 767-778 (2008).
30. Picotti, P. et al. A complete mass-spectrometric map of the yeast proteome applied to quantitative trait analysis. Nature 494, 266-270 (2013).
31. Hahlem, A., Bellavance, F. & Larocque, D. Mixed-effects random forest for clustered data. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 84, 1313-1328 (2014).
32. Sela, R. & Simonoff, J. Re-em trees: a data mining approach for longitudinal and clustered data. Machine Learn. 86, 169-207 (2012).
33. Listgarten, J. et al. Improved linear mixed models for genome-wide association studies. Nat. Methods 9, 525-526 (2012).
34. Zhang, Z. et al. Mixed linear model approach adapted for genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 42, 355-360 (2010).
35. Atwell, S. et al. Genome-wide association study of 107 phenotypes in arabidopsis thaliana inbred lines. Nature 465, 627-631 (2010).
36. Robinson, G. K. That blup is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Stat. Sci. 6, 15-32 (1991).
37. Smith, A., Cullis, B. & Gilmour, A. Applications: the analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia. Aust. N. Z. J. Stat. 43, 129-145 (2001).
38. Piepho, H.-P., Möhring, J., Schulz-Streeck, T. & Ogutu, J. O. A stage-wise approach for the analysis of multi-environment trials. Biom. J. 54, 844-860 (2012).
39. Huang, G.-J. et al. High resolution mapping of expression qtls in heterogeneous stock mice in multiple tissues. Genome Res. 19, 1133-1140 (2009).
40. Joshi-Tope, G. et al. Reactome: a knowledgebase of biological pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D428-D432 (2005).
41. Carlborg, O. & Haley, C. Epistasis: too often neglected in complex trait studies? Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 618-625 (2004).
42. Meuwissen, T. H. E., Hayes, B. J. & Goddard, M. E. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819-1829 (2001).
43. Hammer, G. et al. Models for navigating biological complexity in breeding improved crop plants. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 587-593 (2006).
44. de los Campos, G., Hickey, J. M., Pong-Wong, R., Daetwyler, H. D. & Calus, M. P. Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 193, 327-345 (2013).
45. Piepho, H., Möhring, J., Melchinger, A. & Büchse, A. Blup for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161, 209-228 (2008).
46. Ober, U. et al. Using whole-genome sequence data to predict quantitative trait phenotypes in drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002685 (2012).
47. Wray, N. R. et al. Pitfalls of predicting complex traits from SNPs. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 507-515 (2013).
48. Makowsky, R. et al. Beyond missing heritability: prediction of complex traits. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002051 (2011).
49. Valdar, W. et al. Genome-wide genetic association of complex traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Nat. Genet. 38, 879-887 (2006).
50. Sabatti, C. et al. Genome-wide association analysis of metabolic traits in a birth cohort from a founder population. Nat. Genet. 41, 35-46 (2008).
51. Teslovich, T. M. et al. Biological, clinical and population relevance of 95 loci for blood lipids. Nature 466, 707-713 (2010).
52. Zhou, X. & Stephens, M. Efficient multivariate linear mixed model algorithms for genome-wide association studies. Nat. Methods 11, 407-409 (2014).
53. Saeys, Y., Inza, I. & Larranãga, P. A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 23, 2507-2517 (2007).
54. Meinshausen, N. & Bühlmann, P. Stability selection. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 72, 417-473 (2010).
55. Churchill, G. A. & Doerge, R. W. Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138, 963-971 (1994).
56. Francesconi, M. & Lehner, B. The effects of genetic variation on gene expression dynamics during development. Nature 505, 208-211 (2013).
57. George, A. Controlling type 1 error rates in genome-wide association studies in plants. Heredity 111, 86-87 (2012).
58. Müller, B., Stich, B. & Piepho, H. A general method for controlling the genomewide type i error rate in linkage and association mapping experiments in plants. Heredity 106, 825-831 (2010).
59. Manolio, T. A. et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461, 747-753 (2009).
60. Zuk, O. et al. Searching for missing heritability: Designing rare variant association studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E455-E464 (2014).
61. Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (MIT Press, 2006).
62. Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J. Machine Learn. Res. 12, 2825-2830 (2011).
63. Geurts, P., Ernst, D. & Wehenkel, L. Extremely randomized trees. Machine Learn. 63, 3-42 (2006).
64. Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomforest. R News 2, 18-22 (2002).
65. Cheng, R. & Palmer, A. A. A simulation study of permutation, bootstrap, and gene dropping for assessing statistical significance in the case of unequal relatedness. Genetics 193, 1015-1018 (2013).
66. Hayes, B. J., Visscher, P. M. & Goddard, M. E. Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet. Res. 91, 47-60 (2009).
67. Korol, A., Preigel, I. & Bocharnikova, N. Linkage between quantitative and marker loci. v. joint analysis of various marker and quantitative traits. Genetika 23, 1421-1431 (1987).
68. Solberg, L. et al. A protocol for high-throughput phenotyping, suitable for quantitative trait analysis in mice. Mamm. Genome 17, 129-146 (2006).
69. Lippert, C., Casale, F. P., Rakitsch, B. & Stegle, O. Limix: genetic analysis of multiple traits. Preprint at http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/003905 (2014).