Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) explore the genetic causes of complex diseases. However, classical approaches ignore the biological context of the genetic variants and genes under study. To address this shortcoming, one can use biological networks, which model functional relationships, to search for functionally related susceptibility loci. Many such network methods exist, each arising from different mathematical frameworks, pre-processing steps, and assumptions about the network properties of the susceptibility mechanism. Unsurprisingly, this results in disparate solutions. To explore how to exploit these heterogeneous approaches, we selected six network methods and applied them to GENESIS, a nationwide French study on familial breast cancer. First, we verified that network methods recovered more interpretable results than a standard GWAS. We addressed the heterogeneity of their solutions by studying their overlap, computing what we called the consensus. The key gene in this consensus solution was COPS5, a gene related to multiple cancer hallmarks. Another issue we observed was that network methods were unstable, selecting very different genes on different subsamples of GENESIS. Therefore, we proposed a stable consensus solution formed by the 68 genes most consistently selected across multiple subsamples. This solution was also enriched in genes known to be associated with breast cancer susceptibility (BLM, CASP8, CASP10, DNAJC1, FGFR2, MRPS30, and SLC4A7, P-value = 3 × 10−4). The most connected gene was CUL3, a regulator of several genes linked to cancer progression. Lastly, we evaluated the biases of each method and the impact of their parameters on the outcome. In general, network methods preferred highly connected genes, even after random rewirings that stripped the connections of any biological meaning. In conclusion, we present the advantages of network-guided GWAS, characterize their shortcomings, and provide strategies to address them. To compute the consensus networks, implementations of all six methods are available at https://github.com/hclimente/gwas-tools.
Funder
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Ligue Contre le Cancer
Institut National Du Cancer
Site de Recherche Intégrée sur le Cancer
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subject
Computational Theory and Mathematics,Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience,Genetics,Molecular Biology,Ecology,Modeling and Simulation,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference69 articles.
1. Chapter 11: Genome-Wide Association Studies;WS Bush;PLoS Computational Biology,2012
2. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019;A Buniello;Nucleic Acids Research,2019
3. 10 Years of GWAS Discovery: Biology, Function, and Translation;PM Visscher;The American Journal of Human Genetics,2017
4. Statistical methods for genome-wide association studies;MH Wang;Seminars in Cancer Biology,2018
5. The infinitesimal model: Definition, derivation, and implications;NH Barton;Theoretical Population Biology,2017
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献