scholarly journals Gowinda: unbiased analysis of gene set enrichment for genome-wide association studies

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (15) ◽  
pp. 2084-2085 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Kofler ◽  
C. Schlotterer
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Marczyk ◽  
Agnieszka Macioszek ◽  
Joanna Tobiasz ◽  
Joanna Polanska ◽  
Joanna Zyla

A typical genome-wide association study (GWAS) analyzes millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), several of which are in a region of the same gene. To conduct gene set analysis (GSA), information from SNPs needs to be unified at the gene level. A widely used practice is to use only the most relevant SNP per gene; however, there are other methods of integration that could be applied here. Also, the problem of nonrandom association of alleles at two or more loci is often neglected. Here, we tested the impact of incorporation of different integrations and linkage disequilibrium (LD) correction on the performance of several GSA methods. Matched normal and breast cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas database were used to evaluate the performance of six GSA algorithms: Coincident Extreme Ranks in Numerical Observations (CERNO), Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), GSEA-SNP, improved GSEA for GWAS (i-GSEA4GWAS), Meta-Analysis Gene-set Enrichment of variaNT Associations (MAGENTA), and Over-Representation Analysis (ORA). Association of SNPs to phenotype was calculated using modified McNemar’s test. Results for SNPs mapped to the same gene were integrated using Fisher and Stouffer methods and compared with the minimum p-value method. Four common measures were used to quantify the performance of all combinations of methods. Results of GSA analysis on GWAS were compared to the one performed on gene expression data. Comparing all evaluation metrics across different GSA algorithms, integrations, and LD correction, we highlighted CERNO, and MAGENTA with Stouffer as the most efficient. Applying LD correction increased prioritization and specificity of enrichment outcomes for all tested algorithms. When Fisher or Stouffer were used with LD, sensitivity and reproducibility were also better. Using any integration method was beneficial in comparison with a minimum p-value method in specific combinations. The correlation between GSA results from genomic and transcriptomic level was the highest when Stouffer integration was combined with LD correction. We thoroughly evaluated different approaches to GSA in GWAS in terms of performance to guide others to select the most effective combinations. We showed that LD correction and Stouffer integration could increase the performance of enrichment analysis and encourage the usage of these techniques.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1776-1784
Author(s):  
Shudong Wang ◽  
Jixiao Wang ◽  
Xinzeng Wang ◽  
Yuanyuan Zhang ◽  
Tao Yi

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are powerful tools for identifying pathogenic genes of complex diseases and revealing genetic structure of diseases. However, due to gene-to-gene interactions, only a part of the hereditary factors can be revealed. The meta-analysis based on GWAS can integrate gene expression data at multiple levels and reveal the complex relationship between genes. Therefore, we used meta-analysis to integrate GWAS data of sarcoma to establish complex networks and discuss their significant genes. Firstly, we established gene interaction networks based on the data of different subtypes of sarcoma to analyze the node centralities of genes. Secondly, we calculated the significant score of each gene according to the Staged Significant Gene Network Algorithm (SSGNA). Then, we obtained the critical gene set HYC of sarcoma by ranking the scores, and then combined Gene Ontology enrichment analysis and protein network analysis to further screen it. Finally, the critical core gene set Hcore containing 47 genes was obtained and validated by GEPIA analysis. Our method has certain generalization performance to the study of complex diseases with prior knowledge and it is a useful supplement to genome-wide association studies.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e0140179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Rosenberger ◽  
Stefanie Friedrichs ◽  
Christopher I. Amos ◽  
Paul Brennan ◽  
Gordon Fehringer ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (Suppl 7) ◽  
pp. S95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Sohns ◽  
Albert Rosenberger ◽  
Heike Bickeböller

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document