1 / 17

170 likes | 353 Views

Parametric and Non-Parametric analysis of complex diseases Lecture #6. Based on: Chapter 25 & 26 in Terwilliger and Ott’s Handbook of Human Genetic Linkage. Prepared by Dan Geiger. Complex Diseases. Unknown mode of inheritance (Dominant/recessive) Several interacting loci (Epistasis)

Download Presentation
## Parametric and Non-Parametric analysis of complex diseases Lecture #6

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Parametric and Non-Parametric analysis of complex**diseasesLecture #6 Based on: Chapter 25 & 26 in Terwilliger and Ott’s Handbook of Human Genetic Linkage. Prepared by Dan Geiger. .**Complex Diseases**• Unknown mode of inheritance (Dominant/recessive) • Several interacting loci (Epistasis) • Unclear affected status (e.g., psychiatric disorders) • Genetic heterogeneity • Non genetic factors We start by specifying how alternative models look like using a Bayesian network model.**L11m**L11f L12m L12f X11 S13m X12 S13f y2 y1 L13f L13m X13 y3 Mode of Inheritance Specify different conditional probability tables between the phenotype variables Yi and the genotypes L21m L21f L22m L22f X21 S23m X22 S23f Recessive, full penetrance: P(y1 = sick | X11= (a,a)) = 1 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,a)) = 0 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,A)) = 0 L23f L23m X23**More modes of Inheritance**Dominant, full penetrance: P(y1 = sick | X11= (a,a)) = 1 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,a)) = 1 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,A)) = 0 Dominant, 20% penetrance, 5% penetrance for phenocopies: P(y1 = sick | X11= (a,a)) = 0.2 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,a)) = 0.2 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,A)) = 0.05 Dominant, 60% penetrance: P(y1 = sick | X11= (a,a)) = 0.6 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,a)) = 0.6 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,A)) = 0 Recessive, 40% penetrance, 1% penetrance for phenocopies: P(y1 = sick | X11= (a,a)) = 0.4 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,a)) = 0.01 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,A)) = 0.01**L11m**L11f L12m L12f X11 S13m X12 S13f y2 y1 L13f L13m X13 y3 L21m L21f L22m L22f X21 S23m X22 S23f L23f L23m X23 Two or more interacting loci (epistasis) Specify different conditional probability tables between the phenotype variables Yi and the 2 or more genotypes of person i. Example: Recessive, full penetrance: P(y11 = sick | X11= (a,a), X21= (a,a)) = 1 P(y11 = sick | X11= (A,a), X21= (a,a)) = 0 P(y11 = sick | X11= (A,A), X21= (a,a)) = 0 6 more zero options to specify.**Unclear affection status**L11m L11f L12m L12f X11 S13m X12 S13f Specify a “confusion matrix” regarding the process that determines affected status. Y2 Y1 L13f L13m Z1 X13 Z1 Y3 Z1 L21m L21f L22m L22f S23f S23m X21 X22 L23f L23m X23 P(z1 = measured sick | y1 = sick) = 0.9 P(z1 = measured sick | y1 = not sick) = 0.2**Si3f**Li2f Xi2 Li2m Li3f Xi3 Li3m Li1f Xi1 Li1m Si3m 2 3 1 Genetic Heterogeneity Non-Allelic heterogeneity: several independent loci predisposes to the disease .**Non genetic factors**L11m L11f L12m L12f X11 S13m X12 S13f Liability Class L1 L2 y2 y1 L13f L13m Example: Li = 1 means “old” Li = 2 means “young”. X13 L3 y3 L21m L21f L22m L22f X21 S23m X22 S23f Under liability class 1 (L1=1): P(y1 = sick | X11= (a,a), L1 =1) = 1 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,a), L1 =1) = 0.05 P(y1 = sick | X11= (A,A), L1 =1) = 0.05 L23f L23m X23 Under L1 =2 (“young”): the first line changes, say, to 0.3 and the other two lines to, say, 0.**Parametric versus Non-Parametric**All analyses considered so far are “parametric” meaning that a mode of inheritance is assumed . In some cases, several options of modes of inheritance are assumed but still the analysis uses each option in turn. For complex diseases it is believed that “non-parametric” methods might work better. In our context, these are methods that do not take mode of inheritance into account. The idea is that computing linkage without assuming mode of inheritance is more robust to error in model specification. Clearly, if the model is correct, parametric methods perform better, but not so if the model is wrong as for complex traits.**Some Non-Parametric Methods**Definitions: Any two identical copies of an allele l are said to be identical by state (IBS). If these alleles are inherited from the same individual then they are also identical by descent (IBD). Clearly, IBD implies IBS but not vice versa. Main idea: if affected siblings share more IBD alleles at some marker locus than randomly expected among siblings, then that locus might be near a locus of a predisposing gene. • We will consider the following non-parametric methods: • Affected Sib-Pair Analysis (ASP) • Extended Affected Sib-Pair Analysis (ESPA) • Affected Pedigree Member method (APM)**1/1**1/2 1/1 1/1 1/2 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/1 1/3 1/2 1/2 Identical By Descent (IBD) No allele is IBD. One allele is IBS. Exactly one allele IBD. At least one allele IBD. Expected 1.5 alleles IBD.**Affected Sib-Pair Analysis**The idea is that any two siblings are expected to have one allele IBD by chance (and at most two IBD alleles, ofcourse). When a deviation of this pattern is detected, by examining many sib-pairs, a linkage is established between a disease gene and the marker location. This phenomena happens regardless of mode of inheritance, but its strength is different for each mode.**1/2**3/4 1/4 1/3 Affected Sib-Pair Analysis There are 16 combinations of sibling marker genotypes: SON1 SON2 IBD SON1 SON2 IBD SON1 SON2 IBD SON1 SON2 IBD 1/3 1/3 2 1/4 1/4 2 2/3 2/3 2 2/4 2/4 2 1/3 1/4 1 1/4 1/3 1 2/3 2/4 1 2/4 2/3 1 1/3 2/3 1 1/4 2/4 1 2/3 1/3 1 2/4 1/4 1 1/3 2/4 0 1/4 2/3 0 2/3 1/4 0 2/4 1/3 0 Not surprisingly, the expected number of IBD alleles is (4*2+8*1)/16=1. But now assume a dominant disease coming from the father and is on the haplotype with the 1 allele. The only viable options are marked in the table. The expected IBD is thus (2*2+2*1)/4 = 1.5, which can be detected in analysis. For a recessive disease linked on the haplotype of 1 and 3, the only viable pair is 1/3, 1/3 with expected IBD of 2.**1/2**3/4 1/4 1/3 Affected Sib-Pair Analysis Standard practice of the ASP method where pedigrees look like the above (two parents, two children, all observed), can be done even by hand. However, one can use general pedigrees, and assume some family members are not observed, and consider more distant relatives such as first-cousins, etc.**?/?**3/4 1/4 1/3 Extended Affected Sib-Pair Analysis(e.g, the ESPA program) Compute the probability of alleles of every family configuration given the other typed persons in the pedigree. Based on this probabilities compute: E[IBD] = 1Pr(1 allele IBD) + 2Pr(2 allele IBD) (The ESPA program currently assumes no loops and at most 5 alleles at a locus.)**This measure should be compared to what is expected under no**linkage. To use many pedigrees, a converstion to standard normal variables is used. Affected Pedigree Members method (APM) Computing IBD for distant relatives is considered hard on large pedigrees so researchers used IBS instead. Consider one relative to have alleles (A1,A2) and the other to have (B1,B2). There are four possibilities to have IBS alleles. Weeks and Lang (1988) used the following statistics zij for counting IBS status of two individuals:**where**Taking Gene Frequencies into Account Clearly it is more surprising for affected relatives to share a rare allele than a common one. So one can use a weighted average:

More Related