Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up

Cosetta Minelli, Alessandro De Grandi, Christian X. Weichenberger, Martin Gögele, Mirko Modenese, John Attia, Jennifer H. Barrett, Michael Boehnke, Giuseppe Borsani, Giorgio Casari, Caroline S. Fox, Thomas Freina, Andrew A. Hicks, Fabio Marroni, Giovanni Parmigiani, Andrea Pastore, Cristian Pattaro, Arne Pfeufer, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Christine Schwienbacher & 4 others Daniel Taliun, Peter P. Pramstaller, Francisco S. Domingues, John R. Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biological plausibility and other prior information could help select genome-wide association (GWA) findings for further follow-up, but there is no consensus on which types of knowledge should be considered or how to weight them. We used experts' opinions and empirical evidence to estimate the relative importance of 15 types of information at the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene levels. Opinions were elicited from 10 experts using a two-round Delphi survey. Empirical evidence was obtained by comparing the frequency of each type of characteristic in SNPs established as being associated with seven disease traits through GWA meta-analysis and independent replication, with the corresponding frequency in a randomly selected set of SNPs. SNP and gene characteristics were retrieved using a specially developed bioinformatics tool. Both the expert and the empirical evidence rated previous association in a meta-analysis or more than one study as conferring the highest relative probability of true association, whereas previous association in a single study ranked much lower. High relative probabilities were also observed for location in a functional protein domain, although location in a region evolutionarily conserved in vertebrates was ranked high by the data but not by the experts. Our empirical evidence did not support the importance attributed by the experts to whether the gene encodes a protein in a pathway or shows interactions relevant to the trait. Our findings provide insight into the selection and weighting of different types of knowledge in SNP or gene prioritization, and point to areas requiring further research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)205-213
Number of pages9
JournalGenetic Epidemiology
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2013

Fingerprint

Single Nucleotide Polymorphism
Genome
Genes
Meta-Analysis
Genome-Wide Association Study
Expert Testimony
Computational Biology
Vertebrates
Weights and Measures
Research
Proteins

Keywords

  • Bioinformatics databases
  • Gene prioritization
  • Genome-wide association studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics(clinical)
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Minelli, C., De Grandi, A., Weichenberger, C. X., Gögele, M., Modenese, M., Attia, J., ... Thompson, J. R. (2013). Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up. Genetic Epidemiology, 37(2), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.21705

Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up. / Minelli, Cosetta; De Grandi, Alessandro; Weichenberger, Christian X.; Gögele, Martin; Modenese, Mirko; Attia, John; Barrett, Jennifer H.; Boehnke, Michael; Borsani, Giuseppe; Casari, Giorgio; Fox, Caroline S.; Freina, Thomas; Hicks, Andrew A.; Marroni, Fabio; Parmigiani, Giovanni; Pastore, Andrea; Pattaro, Cristian; Pfeufer, Arne; Ruggeri, Fabrizio; Schwienbacher, Christine; Taliun, Daniel; Pramstaller, Peter P.; Domingues, Francisco S.; Thompson, John R.

In: Genetic Epidemiology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 205-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Minelli, C, De Grandi, A, Weichenberger, CX, Gögele, M, Modenese, M, Attia, J, Barrett, JH, Boehnke, M, Borsani, G, Casari, G, Fox, CS, Freina, T, Hicks, AA, Marroni, F, Parmigiani, G, Pastore, A, Pattaro, C, Pfeufer, A, Ruggeri, F, Schwienbacher, C, Taliun, D, Pramstaller, PP, Domingues, FS & Thompson, JR 2013, 'Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up', Genetic Epidemiology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.21705
Minelli C, De Grandi A, Weichenberger CX, Gögele M, Modenese M, Attia J et al. Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up. Genetic Epidemiology. 2013 Feb;37(2):205-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.21705
Minelli, Cosetta ; De Grandi, Alessandro ; Weichenberger, Christian X. ; Gögele, Martin ; Modenese, Mirko ; Attia, John ; Barrett, Jennifer H. ; Boehnke, Michael ; Borsani, Giuseppe ; Casari, Giorgio ; Fox, Caroline S. ; Freina, Thomas ; Hicks, Andrew A. ; Marroni, Fabio ; Parmigiani, Giovanni ; Pastore, Andrea ; Pattaro, Cristian ; Pfeufer, Arne ; Ruggeri, Fabrizio ; Schwienbacher, Christine ; Taliun, Daniel ; Pramstaller, Peter P. ; Domingues, Francisco S. ; Thompson, John R. / Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up. In: Genetic Epidemiology. 2013 ; Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 205-213.
@article{3bd71beb8dd144139c37a6108c5673d8,
title = "Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up",
abstract = "Biological plausibility and other prior information could help select genome-wide association (GWA) findings for further follow-up, but there is no consensus on which types of knowledge should be considered or how to weight them. We used experts' opinions and empirical evidence to estimate the relative importance of 15 types of information at the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene levels. Opinions were elicited from 10 experts using a two-round Delphi survey. Empirical evidence was obtained by comparing the frequency of each type of characteristic in SNPs established as being associated with seven disease traits through GWA meta-analysis and independent replication, with the corresponding frequency in a randomly selected set of SNPs. SNP and gene characteristics were retrieved using a specially developed bioinformatics tool. Both the expert and the empirical evidence rated previous association in a meta-analysis or more than one study as conferring the highest relative probability of true association, whereas previous association in a single study ranked much lower. High relative probabilities were also observed for location in a functional protein domain, although location in a region evolutionarily conserved in vertebrates was ranked high by the data but not by the experts. Our empirical evidence did not support the importance attributed by the experts to whether the gene encodes a protein in a pathway or shows interactions relevant to the trait. Our findings provide insight into the selection and weighting of different types of knowledge in SNP or gene prioritization, and point to areas requiring further research.",
keywords = "Bioinformatics databases, Gene prioritization, Genome-wide association studies",
author = "Cosetta Minelli and {De Grandi}, Alessandro and Weichenberger, {Christian X.} and Martin G{\"o}gele and Mirko Modenese and John Attia and Barrett, {Jennifer H.} and Michael Boehnke and Giuseppe Borsani and Giorgio Casari and Fox, {Caroline S.} and Thomas Freina and Hicks, {Andrew A.} and Fabio Marroni and Giovanni Parmigiani and Andrea Pastore and Cristian Pattaro and Arne Pfeufer and Fabrizio Ruggeri and Christine Schwienbacher and Daniel Taliun and Pramstaller, {Peter P.} and Domingues, {Francisco S.} and Thompson, {John R.}",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1002/gepi.21705",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "205--213",
journal = "Genetic Epidemiology",
issn = "0741-0395",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Importance of Different Types of Prior Knowledge in Selecting Genome-Wide Findings for Follow-Up

AU - Minelli, Cosetta

AU - De Grandi, Alessandro

AU - Weichenberger, Christian X.

AU - Gögele, Martin

AU - Modenese, Mirko

AU - Attia, John

AU - Barrett, Jennifer H.

AU - Boehnke, Michael

AU - Borsani, Giuseppe

AU - Casari, Giorgio

AU - Fox, Caroline S.

AU - Freina, Thomas

AU - Hicks, Andrew A.

AU - Marroni, Fabio

AU - Parmigiani, Giovanni

AU - Pastore, Andrea

AU - Pattaro, Cristian

AU - Pfeufer, Arne

AU - Ruggeri, Fabrizio

AU - Schwienbacher, Christine

AU - Taliun, Daniel

AU - Pramstaller, Peter P.

AU - Domingues, Francisco S.

AU - Thompson, John R.

PY - 2013/2

Y1 - 2013/2

N2 - Biological plausibility and other prior information could help select genome-wide association (GWA) findings for further follow-up, but there is no consensus on which types of knowledge should be considered or how to weight them. We used experts' opinions and empirical evidence to estimate the relative importance of 15 types of information at the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene levels. Opinions were elicited from 10 experts using a two-round Delphi survey. Empirical evidence was obtained by comparing the frequency of each type of characteristic in SNPs established as being associated with seven disease traits through GWA meta-analysis and independent replication, with the corresponding frequency in a randomly selected set of SNPs. SNP and gene characteristics were retrieved using a specially developed bioinformatics tool. Both the expert and the empirical evidence rated previous association in a meta-analysis or more than one study as conferring the highest relative probability of true association, whereas previous association in a single study ranked much lower. High relative probabilities were also observed for location in a functional protein domain, although location in a region evolutionarily conserved in vertebrates was ranked high by the data but not by the experts. Our empirical evidence did not support the importance attributed by the experts to whether the gene encodes a protein in a pathway or shows interactions relevant to the trait. Our findings provide insight into the selection and weighting of different types of knowledge in SNP or gene prioritization, and point to areas requiring further research.

AB - Biological plausibility and other prior information could help select genome-wide association (GWA) findings for further follow-up, but there is no consensus on which types of knowledge should be considered or how to weight them. We used experts' opinions and empirical evidence to estimate the relative importance of 15 types of information at the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene levels. Opinions were elicited from 10 experts using a two-round Delphi survey. Empirical evidence was obtained by comparing the frequency of each type of characteristic in SNPs established as being associated with seven disease traits through GWA meta-analysis and independent replication, with the corresponding frequency in a randomly selected set of SNPs. SNP and gene characteristics were retrieved using a specially developed bioinformatics tool. Both the expert and the empirical evidence rated previous association in a meta-analysis or more than one study as conferring the highest relative probability of true association, whereas previous association in a single study ranked much lower. High relative probabilities were also observed for location in a functional protein domain, although location in a region evolutionarily conserved in vertebrates was ranked high by the data but not by the experts. Our empirical evidence did not support the importance attributed by the experts to whether the gene encodes a protein in a pathway or shows interactions relevant to the trait. Our findings provide insight into the selection and weighting of different types of knowledge in SNP or gene prioritization, and point to areas requiring further research.

KW - Bioinformatics databases

KW - Gene prioritization

KW - Genome-wide association studies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872420943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872420943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/gepi.21705

DO - 10.1002/gepi.21705

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 205

EP - 213

JO - Genetic Epidemiology

JF - Genetic Epidemiology

SN - 0741-0395

IS - 2

ER -