Sequential Kernel Association Tests for the Combined Effect of Rare and Common Variants - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

hart
sequential kernel association tests for the combined effect of rare and common variants n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sequential Kernel Association Tests for the Combined Effect of Rare and Common Variants PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sequential Kernel Association Tests for the Combined Effect of Rare and Common Variants

play fullscreen
1 / 30
Download Presentation
Sequential Kernel Association Tests for the Combined Effect of Rare and Common Variants
80 Views
Download Presentation

Sequential Kernel Association Tests for the Combined Effect of Rare and Common Variants

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Sequential Kernel Association Tests for the Combined Effect of Rare and Common Variants Journal club (Nov/13) SH Lee

  2. Introduction • Sequence data • Rare and unidentified variants • Groupwise association tests • Omnibus tests • Burden test, CMC test, SKAT test • Up-weighting for rare, • down-weighting for common • Rare/common variants tested separately

  3. Introduction • This study develops a joint test of rare/common • Combining burden/SKAT test for rare/common • Can be applied to • whole exome sequencing + GWAS • Deep resequencing of GWAS loci • Basically can analyse all variants including rare, low-frequency and common variants • Simulation (type 1 error, power) • Real data, CD and Autism

  4. Materials and Methods Definition of rare/common • <0.01 rare • 0.01-0.05 low frequency • >0.05 common Or • <1/sqrt(2*n) rare • >1/sqrt(2*n) common • n = 500, rare MAF < 0.031 • n = 10000, rare MAF < 0.007

  5. Materials and Methods • Testing for the overall effect of rare and common variants • Rare for Burden test • Common for SKAT test • Weighted-sum statistics • Fishers method of combining the p values

  6. Weighted-sum statistics • Within a region (e.g. a gene) having m variants • g(*) is a linear or logistic link function • Alpha is for covariates • X is n x m matrix • Beta is regression coefficient and random variable

  7. Weighted sum score test(Variance component score test) Taking the first derivative of log-likelihood respect with the variance τ P-value from κχ2ν κis scale parameter, v is degree of freedom

  8. Weighted sum score test(Variance component score test) Wu et al (2010) AJHG 86: 929; Liu et al (2008) BMC Bioinformatics 8: 292; Lin (1997) Biometrika 84: 309; White (1982) Econometrica 50: 1

  9. Weighted sum score test(Variance component score test) • ρ : the correlation between regression coefficients • If perfectly correlated (ρ= 1), they will be all the same after weighting, and one should collapse the variants first before running regression, i.e., the burden test • If the regression coefficients are unrelated to each other, one should use SKAT Lee et al. (2012) AJHG 91: 224

  10. Burden-C, SKAT-C • Combined test statistic for rare and common • Weighting beta(p,1,25) for rare, • beta(p,0.5,0.5) for common • Partitioning rare and common variants

  11. Other methods • Burden-A, SKAT-A • Adaptive combining rare/common • Searching φ for the minimum p-value • Burden-F, SKAT-F • Fisher’s combination method

  12. Simulation • Sequence data on 10,000 haplotypes on 1 Mb region • Calibrated model for the European pop • Random sample of a region of 5 or 25 kb and simulated data with 1000-5000 individuals • Proportion of cases in the sample is 0.5

  13. Disease model

  14. Methods

  15. Type I error • The proposed methods agrees with the expectation

  16. Power (separation cut-off) • Using burden-C test • Power with different separation cut-offs • 1/sqrt(2n) will be used further

  17. Power (proposed methods) • Power for 8 different tests • The proposed combination tests outperform

  18. Power • Rare/common causal variants (model 1, 2, 3, 6) • The combination methods perform better

  19. Power • Common causal variants (model 5) • The combination methods perform better • Rare causal variants (model 4) • The combination methods perform similarly

  20. Power (proposed methods) • The proposed combination methods outperform CMC for all 6 disease models • The proposed combination methods outperform the original SKAT for all 6 disease models

  21. Power • For model 1-4 which include only risk variants • SKAT better than Burden when prop. risk variants is small (10%) • Burden better than SKAT when prop. risk variants is large (30%)

  22. Power • Model 1-3 which include both rare/common • SKAT-F better than burden-F regardless of prop. risk variants • Model 5 which include only common risk variants • SKAT better than burden regardless of prop. risk variants

  23. Power • Adaptive test (SKAT-A, Burden-A) • Perform worse than SKAT-C and Burden-C • Results for a region of size 5 kb were similar

  24. Real data • CD NOD2 sequence data • 453 cases, 103 controls • 60 single nucleotide variations (9 of them have > MAF 0.05) • Because only pooled frequency counts available for each variants, sequencing data were simulated. • Autism LRP2 sequencing data • 430 cases, 379 controls

  25. Real data • The combination methods powerful than others

  26. Discussion • The proposed combination methods • Partitioning rare/common • Powerful approach • Better than CMC (rare/common partitioning) • Better than original Burden and SKAT test • Extend to family-based designs

  27. Discussion • T1D HLA region • SKAT (2.7e-43) • Wald test (6.7e-49) • Likelihood ratio test (8.9e-221) • LD between regions • Multiple different components within a region

  28. Thanks

  29. Linear SKAT vs individual variant test statistics • Linear SKAT (lower) and individual variant test (upper) is equivalent

  30. Three disease model for power comparison