Ivan P. Gorlov, Olga Y. Gorlova, Shamil R. Sunyaev, Margaret R

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Structure of Common Genetic Variation in United States Populations
Advertisements

Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, J
Extensive Linkage Disequilibrium in Small Human Populations in Eurasia
Rare, Low-Frequency, and Common Variants in the Protein-Coding Sequence of Biological Candidate Genes from GWASs Contribute to Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis 
Itsik Pe’er, Yves R. Chretien, Paul I. W. de Bakker, Jeffrey C
Performance of Common Analysis Methods for Detecting Low-Frequency Single Nucleotide Variants in Targeted Next-Generation Sequence Data  David H. Spencer,
Claudio Verzilli, Tina Shah, Juan P
Annotation of Sequence Variants in Cancer Samples
Lipopolysaccharide binding protein promoter variants influence the risk for Gram-negative bacteremia and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic cell.
Pathogenic Variants for Mendelian and Complex Traits in Exomes of 6,517 European and African Americans: Implications for the Return of Incidental Results 
Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, J
Annotation of Sequence Variants in Cancer Samples
The Diversity Present in 5140 Human Mitochondrial Genomes
Model-free Estimation of Recent Genetic Relatedness
Haplotype Estimation Using Sequencing Reads
Estimating Kinship in Admixed Populations
Caroline Durrant, Krina T. Zondervan, Lon R
Deep Whole-Genome Sequencing of 100 Southeast Asian Malays
Improved Heritability Estimation from Genome-wide SNPs
Rounak Dey, Ellen M. Schmidt, Goncalo R. Abecasis, Seunggeun Lee 
Weight Loss after Gastric Bypass Is Associated with a Variant at 15q26
Gene-Expression Variation Within and Among Human Populations
Biased Gene Conversion Skews Allele Frequencies in Human Populations, Increasing the Disease Burden of Recessive Alleles  Joseph Lachance, Sarah A. Tishkoff 
Arpita Ghosh, Fei Zou, Fred A. Wright 
Relationship between Deleterious Variation, Genomic Autozygosity, and Disease Risk: Insights from The 1000 Genomes Project  Trevor J. Pemberton, Zachary.
XMCPDT Does Have Correct Type I Error Rates
HYST: A Hybrid Set-Based Test for Genome-wide Association Studies, with Application to Protein-Protein Interaction-Based Association Analysis  Miao-Xin.
Genomic Signatures of Selective Pressures and Introgression from Archaic Hominins at Human Innate Immunity Genes  Matthieu Deschamps, Guillaume Laval,
Variant Association Tools for Quality Control and Analysis of Large-Scale Sequence and Genotyping Array Data  Gao T. Wang, Bo Peng, Suzanne M. Leal  The.
A Selection Operator for Summary Association Statistics Reveals Allelic Heterogeneity of Complex Traits  Zheng Ning, Youngjo Lee, Peter K. Joshi, James.
Guidelines for Large-Scale Sequence-Based Complex Trait Association Studies: Lessons Learned from the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project  Paul L. Auer, Alex.
Maximizing the Power of Principal-Component Analysis of Correlated Phenotypes in Genome-wide Association Studies  Hugues Aschard, Bjarni J. Vilhjálmsson,
An Excess of Risk-Increasing Low-Frequency Variants Can Be a Signal of Polygenic Inheritance in Complex Diseases  Yingleong Chan, Elaine T. Lim, Niina.
Xin Li, Alexis Battle, Konrad J. Karczewski, Zach Zappala, David A
Patterns of Genetic Coding Variation in a Native American Population before and after European Contact  John Lindo, Mary Rogers, Elizabeth K. Mallott,
Robust Inference of Identity by Descent from Exome-Sequencing Data
Family-Based Association Studies for Next-Generation Sequencing
Alkes L. Price, Gregory V. Kryukov, Paul I. W. de Bakker, Shaun M
Structural Architecture of SNP Effects on Complex Traits
Studying Gene and Gene-Environment Effects of Uncommon and Common Variants on Continuous Traits: A Marker-Set Approach Using Gene-Trait Similarity Regression 
Matthieu Foll, Oscar E. Gaggiotti, Josephine T
Wenting Wu, Christopher I. Amos, Jeffrey E. Lee, Qingyi Wei, Kavita Y
Jon Wakefield  The American Journal of Human Genetics 
Pier Francesco Palamara, Laurent C. Francioli, Peter R
Rare-Variant Association Testing for Sequencing Data with the Sequence Kernel Association Test  Michael C. Wu, Seunggeun Lee, Tianxi Cai, Yun Li, Michael.
Highly Punctuated Patterns of Population Structure on the X Chromosome and Implications for African Evolutionary History  Charla A. Lambert, Caitlin F.
Shuhua Xu, Wei Huang, Ji Qian, Li Jin 
Estimating Genetic Effects and Quantifying Missing Heritability Explained by Identified Rare-Variant Associations  Dajiang J. Liu, Suzanne M. Leal  The.
Benjamin A. Rybicki, Robert C. Elston 
A Unified Approach to Genotype Imputation and Haplotype-Phase Inference for Large Data Sets of Trios and Unrelated Individuals  Brian L. Browning, Sharon.
James A. Lautenberger, J. Claiborne Stephens, Stephen J
A Fast, Powerful Method for Detecting Identity by Descent
Stephen Leslie, Peter Donnelly, Gil McVean 
Extensive Linkage Disequilibrium in Small Human Populations in Eurasia
Jared R. Kohler, David J. Cutler 
Joseph K. Pickrell  The American Journal of Human Genetics 
Selecting a Maximally Informative Set of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms for Association Analyses Using Linkage Disequilibrium  Christopher S. Carlson,
Identifying Darwinian Selection Acting on Different Human APOL1 Variants among Diverse African Populations  Wen-Ya Ko, Prianka Rajan, Felicia Gomez, Laura.
L-GATOR: Genetic Association Testing for a Longitudinally Measured Quantitative Trait in Samples with Related Individuals  Xiaowei Wu, Mary Sara McPeek 
Trevor J. Pemberton, Chaolong Wang, Jun Z. Li, Noah A. Rosenberg 
Deleterious- and Disease-Allele Prevalence in Healthy Individuals: Insights from Current Predictions, Mutation Databases, and Population-Scale Resequencing 
Unified Sequence-Based Association Tests Allowing for Multiple Functional Annotations and Meta-analysis of Noncoding Variation in Metabochip Data  Zihuai.
Long Runs of Homozygosity Are Enriched for Deleterious Variation
Yu Zhang, Tianhua Niu, Jun S. Liu 
Evaluating the Effects of Imputation on the Power, Coverage, and Cost Efficiency of Genome-wide SNP Platforms  Carl A. Anderson, Fredrik H. Pettersson,
Genotype-Imputation Accuracy across Worldwide Human Populations
Zuoheng Wang, Mary Sara McPeek  The American Journal of Human Genetics 
Michael P. Epstein, Richard Duncan, Erin B. Ware, Min A
Brian C. Verrelli, Sarah A. Tishkoff 
Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees
Presentation transcript:

Shifting Paradigm of Association Studies: Value of Rare Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms  Ivan P. Gorlov, Olga Y. Gorlova, Shamil R. Sunyaev, Margaret R. Spitz, Christopher I. Amos  The American Journal of Human Genetics  Volume 82, Issue 1, Pages 100-112 (January 2008) DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006 Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Distribution of SNPs from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements and of All SNPs Reported in the International HapMap Database by Minor Allele Frequency The distribution of encyclopedia of DNA elements (orange) and all single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in the International HapMap database (blue) by minor allele frequency (MAF) are shown. All SNPs regardless of their functional category were included in the analysis. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Distribution of Intronic Ratios and MAFs for Various Types of the HapMap SNPs in Coding Regions of the Human Genome: S, B, Pos.D., and Prob.D. SNPs (A)–(C) show the CEPH (Europeans) sample; (D)–(F) show the YRI (Africans) sample. (A) and (D) show intronic ratios for synonymous SNPs (S), nonsynonymous SNPs predicted to be benign (B), nsSNPs predicted to be possibly damaging (Pos.D.), and nsSNPs predicted to be probably damaging (Prob.D.). Absolute numbers of S, B, Pos.D., and Prob.D. SNPs varied drastically, thereby making direct comparisons of intronic ratios difficult. For visual clarity, we scaled the average ratios to 1 by anchoring the distributions by their rightmost parts (i.e., 0.4–0.5). Standard errors (SEs) are shown for S and Prob.D. SNPs. (B) and (E) show the distribution of SNPs with 0–0.025 MAFs. The proportion of SNPs in the 0–0.025 MAF category is shown separately because it was much greater than proportions in the other categories. MAF was portioned into 20 bins by a 2.5% step. (C) and (F) show the proportion of SNPs in MAF >0.025 categories. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Distribution of Intronic Ratios and SNPs by MAF Categories, SeattleSNPs Database (A)–(C) show European descent; (D)–(F) show African descent. (A) and (D) show intronic ratios for synonymous SNPs (S), nonsynonymous SNPs predicted to be benign (B), nsSNPs predicted to be possibly or probably damaging (Pos.D./Prob.D.). The distributions were anchored by their rightmost parts similarly as in Figure 2. SEs are shown for S and Pos.D./Prob.D. SNPs. (B) and (E) show the distribution of SNPs with 0–0.05 MAFs. Proportions of SNPs in 0–0.05 MAF category are shown separately because they were much greater than proportions in the other categories. (C) and (F) show proportions of SNPs in MAF >0.05 categories. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Proportion of Nonsynonymous Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Predicted to be Protein Damaging Plotted against Minor Allele Frequency Each point represents the proportion of functional nsSNPs in a given MAF category. (A) shows the proportion predicted by the PolyPhen method. Dark solid lines are the logarithmic-regression curves. The orange line is the regression curve adjusted for PolyPhen's sensitivity and specificity (see Material and Methods for details). Vertical bars represent SEs computed on the basis of the multinomial distribution. (B) shows the proportion predicted by the sorting intolerant from tolerant (SIFT) method. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Conservative versus Radical Amino Acid Substitutions Proportions of functional SNPs among radical (blue line) and conservative (green line) amino acid substitutions are shown. Vertical bars represent SEs. Predictive curves (gray) and equations are shown separately for radical and conservative substitutions. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Relationship between Statistical Power and Needed Sample Size The model shows a dominant causal single-nucleotide polymorphism with a minor allele frequency (MAF) ≤5%. (A) shows OR = 1.5, and (B) shows OR = 2.0. We used a 5% significance level. The power calculations were performed on the basis of the assumption that only one SNP is being typed (no corrections for multiple testing). The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Example of Computing Probability to Detect True Association and Most Powerful Minor Allele Frequency Study of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in a dominant model of inheritance with 300 cases and 300 controls. An OR = 1.5 was assumed. In (A), the red line shows the dependence of the statistical power on minor allele frequency (MAF), and the blue line shows the predicted proportion of functional SNPs P(F), predicted by formula 1. (B) shows the dependence of PDTA on MAF. The mpMAF is marked by the vertical line, which indicates ∼0.22 in this case. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 8 Dependence of the Probability to Detect a True Association on Minor Allele Frequency and Sample Size Equal sample sizes for cases and controls were assumed, and the total sample size is shown. OR = 1.5 in both the (A) recessive and (B) dominant models. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions

Figure 9 Predicted Dependence of Most Powerful Minor Allele Frequency on the Sample Size Recessive (blue lines) and dominant (red lines) models were assumed. The sample comprises equal numbers of cases and controls, and the total size is shown. (A) shows OR = 1.3. (B) shows OR = 1.5. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2008 82, 100-112DOI: (10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.09.006) Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics Terms and Conditions