Using tree-based methods for detection of gene-gene interactions in the presence of a polygenic signal: simulation study with appli-cation to educational attainment in the Genera-tion Scotland Cohort Study

Joeri Meijsen, Alexandros Rammos, Archibald Campbell, Caroline Hayward, David Porteous, Ian Deary, Riccardo Marioni, Kristin Nicodemus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Motivation
The genomic architecture of human complex diseases is thought to be attributable to single markers, polygenic components and epistatic components. No study has examined the ability of tree-based methods to detect epistasis in the presence of a polygenic signal. We sought to apply decision tree-based methods, C5.0 and logic regression, to detect epistasis under several simulated conditions, varying strength of interaction and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure. We, then applied the same methods to the phenotype of educational attainment in a large population cohort.

Results
LD pruning improved the power and reduced the type I error. C5.0 had a conservative type I error rate whereas logic regression had a type I error rate that exceeded 5%. Despite the more conservative type I error, C5.0 was observed to have higher power than logic regression across several conditions. In the presence of a polygenic signal, power was generally reduced. Applying both methods on educational attainment in a large population cohort yielded numerous interacting SNPs; notably a SNP in RCAN3 which is associated with reading and spelling and a SNP in NPAS3 a neurodevelopmental gene.

Availability
All methods used are implemented and freely available in R
Original languageEnglish
JournalBioinformatics
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Using tree-based methods for detection of gene-gene interactions in the presence of a polygenic signal: simulation study with appli-cation to educational attainment in the Genera-tion Scotland Cohort Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this