Joint Modelling of Confounding Factors and Prominent Genetic Regulators Provides Increased Accuracy in Genetical Genomics Studies

Expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) studies are an integral tool to investigate the genetic component of gene expression variation. A major challenge in the analysis of such studies are hidden confounding factors, such as unobserved covariates or unknown subtle environmental perturbations. These factors can induce a pronounced artifactual correlation structure in the expression profiles, which may create spurious false associations or mask real genetic association signals. Here, we report PANAMA (Probabilistic ANAlysis of genoMic dAta), a novel probabilistic model to account for confounding factors within an eQTL analysis. In contrast to previous methods, PANAMA learns hidden factors jointly with the effect of prominent genetic regulators. As a result, this new model can more accurately distinguish true genetic association signals from confounding variation. We applied our model and compared it to existing methods on different datasets and biological systems. PANAMA consistently performs better than alternative methods, and finds in particular substantially more trans regulators. Importantly, our approach not only identifies a greater number of associations, but also yields hits that are biologically more plausible and can be better reproduced between independent studies. A software implementation of PANAMA is freely available online at http://ml.sheffield.ac.uk/qtl/.

[1]  Jingyuan Fu,et al.  Genetical Genomics: Spotlight on QTL Hotspots , 2008, PLoS genetics.

[2]  D. Stephan,et al.  A survey of genetic human cortical gene expression , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[3]  Neil D. Lawrence,et al.  Probabilistic Non-linear Principal Component Analysis with Gaussian Process Latent Variable Models , 2005, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[4]  D. Koller,et al.  Population genomics of human gene expression , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[5]  David Mackay,et al.  Probable networks and plausible predictions - a review of practical Bayesian methods for supervised neural networks , 1995 .

[6]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[7]  Cheng Li,et al.  Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[8]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  G. Churchill.  Fundamentals of experimental design for cDNA microarrays , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[10]  L. Kruglyak,et al.  Gene–Environment Interaction in Yeast Gene Expression , 2008, PLoS biology.

[11]  Leopold Parts,et al.  A Bayesian Framework to Account for Complex Non-Genetic Factors in Gene Expression Levels Greatly Increases Power in eQTL Studies , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[12]  Chun Jimmie Ye,et al.  Accurate Discovery of Expression Quantitative Trait Loci Under Confounding From Spurious and Genuine Regulatory Hotspots , 2008, Genetics.

[13]  Ying Liu,et al.  FaST linear mixed models for genome-wide association studies , 2011, Nature Methods.

[14]  L. Kruglyak,et al.  Genetic Dissection of Transcriptional Regulation in Budding Yeast , 2002, Science.

[15]  D. Heckerman,et al.  Efficient Control of Population Structure in Model Organism Association Mapping , 2008, Genetics.

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks , 1995 .

[17]  Pooja Jain,et al.  The YEASTRACT database: a tool for the analysis of transcription regulatory associations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  R. Durbin,et al.  Using probabilistic estimation of expression residuals (PEER) to obtain increased power and interpretability of gene expression analyses , 2012, Nature Protocols.

[19]  Tom Minka,et al.  Automatic Choice of Dimensionality for PCA , 2000, NIPS.

[20]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization , 1995, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[21]  D. Clayton,et al.  Extreme Clonality in Lymphoblastoid Cell Lines with Implications for Allele Specific Expression Analyses , 2008, PloS one.

[22]  David Heckerman,et al.  Correction for hidden confounders in the genetic analysis of gene expression , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  J. Castle,et al.  An integrative genomics approach to infer causal associations between gene expression and disease , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[24]  M. McCarthy,et al.  Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[25]  M. McMullen,et al.  A unified mixed-model method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[26]  Simon C. Potter,et al.  The Architecture of Gene Regulatory Variation across Multiple Human Tissues: The MuTHER Study , 2011, PLoS genetics.

[27]  Vipin T. Sreedharan,et al.  Multiple reference genomes and transcriptomes for Arabidopsis thaliana , 2011, Nature.

[28]  D. Balding,et al.  Handbook of statistical genetics , 2004 .

[29]  Daniel Pinkel,et al.  Large-scale variation among human and great ape genomes determined by array comparative genomic hybridization. , 2003, Genome research.

[30]  Joseph K. Pickrell,et al.  Understanding mechanisms underlying human gene expression variation with RNA sequencing , 2010, Nature.

[31]  John D. Storey,et al.  Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis , 2007, PLoS genetics.

[32]  D. Reich,et al.  Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[33]  H. Kang,et al.  Variance component model to account for sample structure in genome-wide association studies , 2010, Nature Genetics.