1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Update on the State of the Science for Analytical Methods for Gene-Environment Interactions

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p id="d4527687e201">The analysis of gene-environment interaction (G×E) may hold the key for further understanding the etiology of many complex traits. The current availability of high-volume genetic data, the wide range in types of environmental data that can be measured, and the formation of consortiums of multiple studies provide new opportunities to identify G×E but also new analytical challenges. In this article, we summarize several statistical approaches that can be used to test for G×E in a genome-wide association study. These include traditional models of G×E in a case-control or quantitative trait study as well as alternative approaches that can provide substantially greater power. The latest methods for analyzing G×E with gene sets and with data in a consortium setting are summarized, as are issues that arise due to the complexity of environmental data. We provide some speculation on why detecting G×E in a genome-wide association study has thus far been difficult. We conclude with a description of software programs that can be used to implement most of the methods described in the paper. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The mystery of missing heritability: Genetic interactions create phantom heritability.

          Human genetics has been haunted by the mystery of "missing heritability" of common traits. Although studies have discovered >1,200 variants associated with common diseases and traits, these variants typically appear to explain only a minority of the heritability. The proportion of heritability explained by a set of variants is the ratio of (i) the heritability due to these variants (numerator), estimated directly from their observed effects, to (ii) the total heritability (denominator), inferred indirectly from population data. The prevailing view has been that the explanation for missing heritability lies in the numerator--that is, in as-yet undiscovered variants. While many variants surely remain to be found, we show here that a substantial portion of missing heritability could arise from overestimation of the denominator, creating "phantom heritability." Specifically, (i) estimates of total heritability implicitly assume the trait involves no genetic interactions (epistasis) among loci; (ii) this assumption is not justified, because models with interactions are also consistent with observable data; and (iii) under such models, the total heritability may be much smaller and thus the proportion of heritability explained much larger. For example, 80% of the currently missing heritability for Crohn's disease could be due to genetic interactions, if the disease involves interaction among three pathways. In short, missing heritability need not directly correspond to missing variants, because current estimates of total heritability may be significantly inflated by genetic interactions. Finally, we describe a method for estimating heritability from isolated populations that is not inflated by genetic interactions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Exposure measurement error in time-series studies of air pollution: concepts and consequences.

            Misclassification of exposure is a well-recognized inherent limitation of epidemiologic studies of disease and the environment. For many agents of interest, exposures take place over time and in multiple locations; accurately estimating the relevant exposures for an individual participant in epidemiologic studies is often daunting, particularly within the limits set by feasibility, participant burden, and cost. Researchers have taken steps to deal with the consequences of measurement error by limiting the degree of error through a study's design, estimating the degree of error using a nested validation study, and by adjusting for measurement error in statistical analyses. In this paper, we address measurement error in observational studies of air pollution and health. Because measurement error may have substantial implications for interpreting epidemiologic studies on air pollution, particularly the time-series analyses, we developed a systematic conceptual formulation of the problem of measurement error in epidemiologic studies of air pollution and then considered the consequences within this formulation. When possible, we used available relevant data to make simple estimates of measurement error effects. This paper provides an overview of measurement errors in linear regression, distinguishing two extremes of a continuum-Berkson from classical type errors, and the univariate from the multivariate predictor case. We then propose one conceptual framework for the evaluation of measurement errors in the log-linear regression used for time-series studies of particulate air pollution and mortality and identify three main components of error. We present new simple analyses of data on exposures of particulate matter < 10 microm in aerodynamic diameter from the Particle Total Exposure Assessment Methodology Study. Finally, we summarize open questions regarding measurement error and suggest the kind of additional data necessary to address them. Images Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Causation and causal inference in epidemiology.

              Concepts of cause and causal inference are largely self-taught from early learning experiences. A model of causation that describes causes in terms of sufficient causes and their component causes illuminates important principles such as multi-causality, the dependence of the strength of component causes on the prevalence of complementary component causes, and interaction between component causes. Philosophers agree that causal propositions cannot be proved, and find flaws or practical limitations in all philosophies of causal inference. Hence, the role of logic, belief, and observation in evaluating causal propositions is not settled. Causal inference in epidemiology is better viewed as an exercise in measurement of an effect rather than as a criterion-guided process for deciding whether an effect is present or not.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Epidemiology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0002-9262
                1476-6256
                October 01 2017
                October 01 2017
                July 15 2017
                October 01 2017
                October 01 2017
                July 15 2017
                : 186
                : 7
                : 762-770
                Article
                10.1093/aje/kwx228
                5859988
                28978192
                ba3abb5c-d6f5-4bdd-b022-e0c7ddceb715
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article