4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Multi-population GWA mapping via multi-task regularized regression

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 i208-i216

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq191

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DBI-0546594, DBI-0640543]
  2. National Institutes of Health [1R01GM087694]
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Population heterogeneity through admixing of different founder populations can produce spurious associations in genome-wide association studies that are linked to the population structure rather than the phenotype. Since samples from the same population generally co-evolve, different populations may or may not share the same genetic underpinnings for the seemingly common phenotype. Our goal is to develop a unified framework for detecting causal genetic markers through a joint association analysis of multiple populations. Results: Based on a multi-task regression principle, we present a multi-population group lasso algorithm using L-1/L-2-regularized regression for joint association analysis of multiple populations that are stratified either via population survey or computational estimation. Our algorithm combines information from genetic markers across populations, to identify causal markers. It also implicitly accounts for correlations between the genetic markers, thus enabling better control over false positive rates. Joint analysis across populations enables the detection of weak associations common to all populations with greater power than in a separate analysis of each population. At the same time, the regression-based framework allows causal alleles that are unique to a subset of the populations to be correctly identified. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method on HapMap-simulated and lactase persistence datasets, where we significantly outperform state of the art methods, with greater power for detecting weak associations and reduced spurious associations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据