Back

DrFARM: Identification and inference for pleiotropic gene in GWAS

Chan, L. S.; Li, G.; Fauman, E. B.; Laakso, M.; Boehnke, M.; Song, P. X. K.

2022-11-14 genomics
10.1101/2022.11.10.515671 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In a standard analysis, pleiotropic variants are identified by running separate genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and combining results across traits. But such two-stage statistical approach may lead to spurious results. We propose a new statistical approach, Debiased-regularized Factor Analysis Regression Model (DrFARM), through a joint regression model for simultaneous analysis of high-dimensional genetic variants and multilevel dependencies. This joint modeling strategy controls overall error to permit universal false discovery rate (FDR) control. DrFARM uses the strengths of the debiasing technique and the Cauchy combination test, both being theoretically justified, to establish a valid post selection inference on pleiotropic variants. Through extensive simulations, we show that DrFARM appropriately controls overall FDR. Applying DrFARM to data on 1,031 metabolites measured on 6,135 men from the Metabolic Syndrome in Men (METSIM) study, we identify 288 new metabolite associations at loci that did not reach statistical significance in prior METSIM metabolite GWAS.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 2%
11.5%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS Genetics
● 862 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
11.5%
Similar papers in this journal
3
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 5%
7.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Biostatistics
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Genetic Epidemiology
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.3%
7
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
9
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.1%
10
Statistics in Medicine
○ 40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
11
GENETICS
◐ 483 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
12
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
13
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.3%
14
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
15
Biometrics
◐ 23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
16
The American Journal of Human Genetics
○ 234 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
17
Nature Computational Science
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
18
NeuroImage
○ 903 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
19
The Annals of Applied Statistics
● 19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
20
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
21
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.4%
22
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.4%
23
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
◐ 351 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
25
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
26
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.0%
27
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
28
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
29
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.6%
30
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.