Bayesian methods applied to GWAS.

Bayesian multiple-regression methods are being successfully used for genomic prediction and selection. These regression models simultaneously fit many more markers than the number of observations available for the analysis. Thus, the Bayes theorem is used to combine prior beliefs of marker effects, which are expressed in terms of prior distributions, with information from data for inference. Often, the analyses are too complex for closed-form solutions and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling is used to draw inferences from posterior distributions. This chapter describes how these Bayesian multiple-regression analyses can be used for GWAS. In most GWAS, false positives are controlled by limiting the genome-wise error rate, which is the probability of one or more false-positive results, to a small value. As the number of test in GWAS is very large, this results in very low power. Here we show how in Bayesian GWAS false positives can be controlled by limiting the proportion of false-positive results among all positives to some small value. The advantage of this approach is that the power of detecting associations is not inversely related to the number of markers.

[1]  W. K. Hastings,et al.  Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications , 1970 .

[2]  C. R. Henderson.  Applications of linear models in animal breeding , 1984 .

[3]  M. Goddard,et al.  Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits and Accuracy of Genomic Prediction: Coat Colour, Milk-Fat Percentage, and Type in Holstein Cattle as Contrasting Model Traits , 2010, PLoS genetics.

[4]  M. Goddard,et al.  Genomic selection. , 2007, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[5]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[6]  John D. Storey.  A direct approach to false discovery rates , 2002 .

[7]  Bin Fan,et al.  Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Loci for Body Composition and Structural Soundness Traits in Pigs , 2011, PloS one.

[8]  R. Fernando,et al.  The Impact of Genetic Relationship Information on Genome-Assisted Breeding Values , 2007, Genetics.

[9]  B. Guldbrandtsen,et al.  Comparison of association mapping methods in a complex pedigreed population , 2010, Genetic Epidemiology.

[10]  Daniel Gianola,et al.  Additive Genetic Variability and the Bayesian Alphabet , 2009, Genetics.

[11]  P. Lichtner,et al.  The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[12]  M. Rothschild,et al.  Whole-genome association analyses for lifetime reproductive traits in the pig. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[13]  Walter R. Gilks,et al.  Introduction to general state-space Markov chain theory , 1995 .

[14]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic breeding value prediction and QTL mapping of QTLMAS2010 data using Bayesian Methods , 2011, BMC proceedings.

[15]  R. Fernando,et al.  Controlling the Proportion of False Positives in Multiple Dependent Tests , 2004, Genetics.

[16]  Daniel Gianola,et al.  Bayesian Methods in Animal Breeding Theory , 1986 .

[17]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations , 1998 .

[18]  K. J. Abraham,et al.  Improved techniques for sampling complex pedigrees with the Gibbs sampler , 2007, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[19]  Walter R. Gilks,et al.  Strategies for improving MCMC , 1995 .

[20]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[21]  Nengjun Yi,et al.  Bayesian model choice and search strategies for mapping interacting quantitative trait Loci. , 2003, Genetics.

[22]  Judy H. Cho,et al.  Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases , 2009, Nature.

[23]  M. Goddard,et al.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. , 2001, Genetics.

[24]  N. Sheehan,et al.  On a misconception about irreducibility of the single-site Gibbs sampler in a pedigree application. , 2002, Genetics.

[25]  Rohan L. Fernando,et al.  Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[26]  S. Godsill.  On the Relationship Between Markov chain Monte Carlo Methods for Model Uncertainty , 2001 .

[27]  B. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian Model Choice Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods , 1995 .

[28]  B. Maher.  Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability , 2008, Nature.

[29]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic-Assisted Prediction of Genetic Value With Semiparametric Procedures , 2006, Genetics.

[30]  M. Stephens,et al.  Bayesian statistical methods for genetic association studies , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[31]  S. Fernandez,et al.  Irreducibility and efficiency of ESIP to sample marker genotypes in large pedigrees with loops , 2002, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[32]  D. Gianola,et al.  Optimal properties of the conditional mean as a selection criterion , 1986, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[33]  P. Visscher,et al.  A Commentary on ‘Common SNPs Explain a Large Proportion of the Heritability for Human Height’ by Yang et al. (2010) , 2010, Twin Research and Human Genetics.

[34]  B. Maher,et al.  The case of the missing heritability , 2008 .

[35]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic breeding value prediction and QTL mapping of QTLMAS2011 data using Bayesian and GBLUP methods , 2012, BMC Proceedings.

[36]  N. Morton.  Sequential tests for the detection of linkage. , 1955, American journal of human genetics.