Accurate phenotyping: Reconciling approaches through Bayesian model averaging

1Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Genetic research into complex diseases is frequently hindered by a lack of clear biomarkers for phenotype ascertainment. Phenotypes for such diseases are often identified on the basis of clinically defined criteria; however such criteria may not be suitable for understanding the genetic composition of the diseases. Various statistical approaches have been proposed for phenotype definition; however our previous studies have shown that differences in phenotypes estimated using different approaches have substantial impact on subsequent analyses. Instead of obtaining results based upon a single model, we propose a new method, using Bayesian model averaging to overcome problems associated with phenotype definition. Although Bayesian model averaging has been used in other fields of research, this is the first study that uses Bayesian model averaging to reconcile phenotypes obtained using multiple models. We illustrate the new method by applying it to simulated genetic and phenotypic data for Kofendred personality disorder - an imaginary disease with several sub-types. Two separate statistical methods were used to identify clusters of individuals with distinct phenotypes: latent class analysis and grade of membership. Bayesian model averaging was then used to combine the two clusterings for the purpose of subsequent linkage analyses. We found that causative genetic loci for the disease produced higher LOD scores using model averaging than under either individual model separately. We attribute this improvement to consolidation of the cores of phenotype clusters identified using each individual method.

Figures

  • Fig 1. The overlapping of the traits for each of the true phenotypes. Letters b, c, d, e, f, g and h correspond to the symptoms listed in Table 4 of Greenberg [16] (also in Table 1).
  • Table 1. Clinical characteristics of KPD. This is the Kofendred Research Assessment Protocol for testing affected/unaffected status. Note that only symptoms b, c, d, e, f, g and h are actually associated with the disorder; the other symptoms are included to test the ability of phenotyping methods to distinguish relevant symptoms.
  • Table 2. Number of individuals with each phenotype.
  • Table 3. Bayesian information criteria for LCA and GoM with number of components varying from 2 to 6.
  • Fig 2. LOD scores of the phenotypes for each of the microsatellite markers across ten chromosomes. P1, P2 and P3 indicate Phenotype 1, 2 and 3. The dotted line is the LOD score of Phenotype 1 estimated using MERLIN-qtl; the dashed-line is the LOD score of Phenotype 2 and the solid line is the LOD score of Phenotype 3. This is used as a benchmark for comparing the results of proposed methods.
  • Fig 3. The characteristics of clusters derived from different statistical models. Plots on the left are deviance and posterior means of symptom prevalence in clusters of LCA and plots on the right are deviance and symptom prevalence in clusters of GoM.
  • Table 4. Sensitivities and specificities of the LCA, GoM and combined method for Phenotype 1 and Phenotype 3 of LCA. None of the models identified a class with structure similar to phenotype 2.
  • Fig 4. LOD scores at each satellite marker for phenotype K1.

References Powered by Scopus

Bayes factors

12824Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit

9975Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cluster ensembles - A knowledge reuse framework for combining multiple partitions

4153Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Recent advances and future perspectives for automated parameterisation, Bayesian inference and machine learning in voltammetry

48Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chen, C. C. M., Keith, J. M., & Mengersen, K. L. (2017). Accurate phenotyping: Reconciling approaches through Bayesian model averaging. PLoS ONE, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176136

Readers over time

‘18‘19‘20‘21‘2202468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

40%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

30%

Researcher 3

30%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 3

38%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

25%

Medicine and Dentistry 2

25%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

13%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0