Comparative analysis of haplotype association mapping algorithms

BackgroundFinding the genetic causes of quantitative traits is a complex and difficult task. Classical methods for mapping quantitative trail loci (QTL) in miceuse an F2 cross between two strains with substantially different phenotype and an interval mapping method to compute confidence intervals at each position in the genome. This process requires significant resources for breeding and genotyping, and the data generated are usually only applicable to one phenotype of interest. Recently, we reported the application of a haplotype association mapping method which utilizes dense genotyping data across a diverse panel of inbred mouse strains and a marker association algorithm that is independent of any specific phenotype. As the availability of genotyping data grows in size and density, analysis of these haplotype association mapping methods should be of increasing value to the statistical genetics community.ResultsWe describe a detailed comparative analysis of variations on our marker association method. In particular, we describe the use of inferred haplotypes from adjacent SNPs, parametric and nonparametric statistics, and control of multiple testing error. These results show that nonparametric methods are slightly better in the test cases we study, although the choice of test statistic may often be dependent on the specific phenotype and haplotype structure being studied. The use of multi-SNP windows to infer local haplotype structure is critical to the use of a diverse panel of inbred strains for QTL mapping. Finally, because the marginal effect of any single gene in a complex disease is often relatively small, these methods require the use of sensitive methods for controlling family-wise error. We also report our initial application of this method to phenotypes cataloged in the Mouse Phenome Database.ConclusionThe use of inbred strains of mice for QTL mapping has many advantages over traditional methods. However, there are also limitations in comparison to the traditional linkage analysis from F2 and RI lines. Application of these methods requires careful consideration of algorithmic choices based on both theoretical and practical factors. Our findings suggest general guidelines, though a complete evaluation of these methods can only be performed as more genetic data in complex diseases becomes available.

[1]  Serge Batalov,et al.  Use of a Dense Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Map for In Silico Mapping in the Mouse , 2004, PLoS biology.

[2]  Gary A. Churchill,et al.  A collaborative database of inbred mouse strain characteristics , 2004, Bioinform..

[3]  P. D. de Jong,et al.  Positional cloning of the mouse saccharin preference (Sac) locus. , 2001, Chemical senses.

[4]  William Valdar,et al.  Strategies for mapping and cloning quantitative trait genes in rodents , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[5]  K. Wittkowski,et al.  In Silico Quantitative Trait Locus Map for Atherosclerosis Susceptibility in Apolipoprotein E–Deficient Mice , 2003, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[6]  Nengjun Yi,et al.  The Collaborative Cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits , 2004, Nature Genetics.

[7]  Gary Peltz,et al.  In Silico Genetics: Identification of a Functional Element Regulating H2-Eα Gene Expression , 2004, Science.

[8]  C. Cunningham,et al.  DBA/2J mice develop stronger lithium chloride-induced conditioned taste and place aversions than C57BL/6J mice , 2000, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

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

[10]  M. Daly,et al.  Segmental phylogenetic relationships of inbred mouse strains revealed by fine-scale analysis of sequence variation across 4.6 mb of mouse genome. , 2004, Genome research.

[11]  Sandrine Dudoit,et al.  Multiple Testing. Part I. Single-Step Procedures for Control of General Type I Error Rates , 2004, Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology.

[12]  K. Broman,et al.  Review of statistical methods for QTL mapping in experimental crosses. , 2001, Lab animal.

[13]  R. Doerge,et al.  Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. , 1994, Genetics.

[14]  B. Paigen,et al.  Quantitative Trait Loci and Candidate Genes Regulating HDL Cholesterol: A Murine Chromosome Map , 2002, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[15]  Richard J. Mural,et al.  Genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism analysis defines haplotype patterns in mouse , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Janice M. Fullerton,et al.  Unexpected complexity in the haplotypes of commonly used inbred strains of laboratory mice. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  E. Lander,et al.  Genetic dissection of complex traits: guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results , 1995, Nature Genetics.

[18]  Gary Peltz,et al.  Grupe, A. et al. In silico mapping of complex disease-related traits in mice. Science 292, 1915-1918 , 2001 .

[19]  G. Peltz,et al.  In Silico Mapping of Complex Disease-Related Traits in Mice , 2001, Science.

[20]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  THE CONTROL OF THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE IN MULTIPLE TESTING UNDER DEPENDENCY , 2001 .

[21]  E. Lander,et al.  Mapping mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. , 1989, Genetics.

[22]  Jörg Köhl,et al.  Complement factor 5 is a quantitative trait gene that modifies liver fibrogenesis in mice and humans , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[23]  Don Edwards.  Resampling-Based Multiple Testing , 1995 .