IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgen00/1000582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical Power of Model Selection Strategies for Genome-Wide Association Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Zheyang Wu
  • Hongyu Zhao

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) aim to identify genetic variants related to diseases by examining the associations between phenotypes and hundreds of thousands of genotyped markers. Because many genes are potentially involved in common diseases and a large number of markers are analyzed, it is crucial to devise an effective strategy to identify truly associated variants that have individual and/or interactive effects, while controlling false positives at the desired level. Although a number of model selection methods have been proposed in the literature, including marginal search, exhaustive search, and forward search, their relative performance has only been evaluated through limited simulations due to the lack of an analytical approach to calculating the power of these methods. This article develops a novel statistical approach for power calculation, derives accurate formulas for the power of different model selection strategies, and then uses the formulas to evaluate and compare these strategies in genetic model spaces. In contrast to previous studies, our theoretical framework allows for random genotypes, correlations among test statistics, and a false-positive control based on GWAS practice. After the accuracy of our analytical results is validated through simulations, they are utilized to systematically evaluate and compare the performance of these strategies in a wide class of genetic models. For a specific genetic model, our results clearly reveal how different factors, such as effect size, allele frequency, and interaction, jointly affect the statistical power of each strategy. An example is provided for the application of our approach to empirical research. The statistical approach used in our derivations is general and can be employed to address the model selection problems in other random predictor settings. We have developed an R package markerSearchPower to implement our formulas, which can be downloaded from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) or http://bioinformatics.med.yale.edu/group/.Author Summary: Almost all published genome-wide association studies are based on single-marker analysis. Intuitively, joint consideration of multiple markers should be more informative when multiple genes and their interactions are involved in disease etiology. For example, an exhaustive search among models involving multiple markers and their interactions can identify certain gene–gene interactions that will be missed by single-marker analysis. However, an exhaustive search is difficult, or even impossible, to perform because of the computational requirements. Moreover, searching more models does not necessarily increase statistical power, because there may be an increased chance of finding false positive results when more models are explored. For power comparisons of different model selection methods, the published studies have relied on limited simulations due to the highly computationally intensive nature of such simulation studies. To enable researchers to compare different model search strategies without resorting to extensive simulations, we develop a novel analytical approach to evaluating the statistical power of these methods. Our results offer insights into how different parameters in a genetic model affect the statistical power of a given model selection strategy. We developed an R package to implement our results. This package can be used by researchers to compare and select an effective approach to detecting SNPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zheyang Wu & Hongyu Zhao, 2009. "Statistical Power of Model Selection Strategies for Genome-Wide Association Studies," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgen00:1000582
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000582
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000582&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel B. Brem & John D. Storey & Jacqueline Whittle & Leonid Kruglyak, 2005. "Genetic interactions between polymorphisms that affect gene expression in yeast," Nature, Nature, vol. 436(7051), pages 701-703, August.
    2. Jianqing Fan & Jinchi Lv, 2008. "Sure independence screening for ultrahigh dimensional feature space," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(5), pages 849-911, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meng An & Haixiang Zhang, 2023. "High-Dimensional Mediation Analysis for Time-to-Event Outcomes with Additive Hazards Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Tomohiro Ando & Ruey S. Tsay, 2009. "Model selection for generalized linear models with factor‐augmented predictors," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 207-235, May.
    3. Shuichi Kawano, 2014. "Selection of tuning parameters in bridge regression models via Bayesian information criterion," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1207-1223, November.
    4. Jing Zhang & Qihua Wang & Xuan Wang, 2022. "Surrogate-variable-based model-free feature screening for survival data under the general censoring mechanism," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 74(2), pages 379-397, April.
    5. Sauvenier, Mathieu & Van Bellegem, Sébastien, 2023. "Direction Identification and Minimax Estimation by Generalized Eigenvalue Problem in High Dimensional Sparse Regression," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2023005, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    6. Ahmed Ismaïl & Hartikainen Anna-Liisa & Järvelin Marjo-Riitta & Richardson Sylvia, 2011. "False Discovery Rate Estimation for Stability Selection: Application to Genome-Wide Association Studies," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Emre Demirkaya & Yang Feng & Pallavi Basu & Jinchi Lv, 2022. "Large-scale model selection in misspecified generalized linear models [Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle]," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 109(1), pages 123-136.
    8. Shan Luo & Zehua Chen, 2014. "Sequential Lasso Cum EBIC for Feature Selection With Ultra-High Dimensional Feature Space," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(507), pages 1229-1240, September.
    9. Shi Chen & Wolfgang Karl Hardle & Brenda L'opez Cabrera, 2020. "Regularization Approach for Network Modeling of German Power Derivative Market," Papers 2009.09739, arXiv.org.
    10. Wang, Christina Dan & Chen, Zhao & Lian, Yimin & Chen, Min, 2022. "Asset selection based on high frequency Sharpe ratio," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 227(1), pages 168-188.
    11. Laurent Ferrara & Anna Simoni, 2023. "When are Google Data Useful to Nowcast GDP? An Approach via Preselection and Shrinkage," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1202, October.
    12. Borup, Daniel & Christensen, Bent Jesper & Mühlbach, Nicolaj Søndergaard & Nielsen, Mikkel Slot, 2023. "Targeting predictors in random forest regression," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 841-868.
    13. Linh H. Nghiem & Francis K.C. Hui & Samuel Müller & A.H. Welsh, 2023. "Screening methods for linear errors‐in‐variables models in high dimensions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 926-939, June.
    14. Caroline Jardet & Baptiste Meunier, 2022. "Nowcasting world GDP growth with high‐frequency data," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 1181-1200, September.
    15. Peter Bühlmann & Jacopo Mandozzi, 2014. "High-dimensional variable screening and bias in subsequent inference, with an empirical comparison," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 407-430, June.
    16. Sangjin Kim & Jong-Min Kim, 2019. "Two-Stage Classification with SIS Using a New Filter Ranking Method in High Throughput Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, May.
    17. Anders Bredahl Kock, 2012. "On the Oracle Property of the Adaptive Lasso in Stationary and Nonstationary Autoregressions," CREATES Research Papers 2012-05, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    18. Tang, Yanlin & Song, Xinyuan & Wang, Huixia Judy & Zhu, Zhongyi, 2013. "Variable selection in high-dimensional quantile varying coefficient models," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 115-132.
    19. Hung Hung & Su‐Yun Huang, 2019. "Sufficient dimension reduction via random‐partitions for the large‐p‐small‐n problem," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 245-255, March.
    20. Loann David Denis Desboulets, 2018. "A Review on Variable Selection in Regression Analysis," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-27, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgen00:1000582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosgenetics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.