Volume 10 Supplement 7
Genetic Analysis Workshop 19: Sequence, Blood Pressure and Expression Data. Proceedings.
Multipoint association mapping for longitudinal family data: an application to hypertension phenotypes
- Yen-Feng Chiu^{1}Email author,
- Chun-Yi Lee^{1} and
- Fang-Chi Hsu^{2}
Published: 18 October 2016
Abstract
It is essential to develop adequate statistical methods to fully utilize information from longitudinal family studies. We extend our previous multipoint linkage disequilibrium approach—simultaneously accounting for correlations between markers and repeat measurements within subjects, and the correlations between subjects in families—to detect loci relevant to disease through gene-based analysis. Estimates of disease loci and their genetic effects along with their 95 % confidence intervals (or significance levels) are reported. Four different phenotypes—ever having hypertension at 4 visits, incidence of hypertension, hypertension status at baseline only, and hypertension status at 4 visits—are studied using the proposed approach. The efficiency of estimates of disease locus positions (inverse of standard error) improves when using the phenotypes from 4 visits rather than using baseline only.
Background
Approaches for analyzing longitudinal family data have been categorized into 2 groups [1]: (a) first summarizing repeated measurements into 1 statistic (eg, a mean or slope per subject) and then using the summarized statistic as a standard outcome for genetic analysis; or (b) simultaneous modeling of genetic and longitudinal parameters. In general, joint modeling is appealing because (a) all parameter estimates are mutually adjusted, and (b) within- and between-individual variability at the levels of gene markers, repeat measurements, and family characteristics are correctly accounted for [1].
The semiparametric linkage disequilibrium mapping for the hybrid family design we developed previously [2] uses all markers simultaneously to localize the disease locus without making an assumption about genetic mechanism, except that only 1 disease gene lies in the region under study. The advantages of this approach are (a) it does not require the specification of an underlying genetic model, so estimating the position of a disease locus and its standard error is robust to a wide variety of genetic mechanisms; (b) it provides estimates of disease locus positions, along with a confidence interval for further fine mapping; and (c) it uses linkage disequilibrium between markers to localize the disease locus, which may not have been typed. We extended this approach to map susceptibility genes using longitudinal nuclear family data with an application to hypertension. Four different outcomes were used based on the proposed method: (I) ever having hypertension (“Ever”), (II) incidence event with status changed from unaffected to affected (“Progression”), (III) first available visit as baseline only (“Baseline”), and (IV) all available time points (“Longitudinal”). We compared the estimates of the disease locus positions, their standard errors, the genetic effect estimate at the disease loci, and their significance for the 4 phenotypes to examine the efficiency gained from using repeated longitudinal phenotypes.
Methods
Genome-wide genotypes and phenotype data
Number of offspring for different phenotypes
Ever | Progression | Baseline | Visit 1 | Visit 2 | Visit 3 | Visit 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Affected offspring | 178 | 130 | 64 | 60 | 78 | 125 | 85 |
All offspring | 469 | 421 | 600 | 565 | 426 | 429 | 189 |
Percentage | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.45 |
Number of nuclear families | 174 | 149 | 213 | 203 | 168 | 165 | 79 |
Multipoint linkage disequilibrium mapping
Suppose M markers were genotyped in the region R at locations of 0 ≤ t _{1} < t _{2} < … < t _{ M } ≤ T. We assume there are 2 alleles per marker. With H (t) being the target allele at marker position t, and h (t) being the nontarget allele, we define
\( \begin{array}{l}{Y}_1^{D_{k_{il}}}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}1\kern0.36em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{transmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\;\mathrm{is}\;H\;(t)\\ {}0\kern0.24em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{transmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\;\mathrm{is}\;h\;(t)\end{array}\right.,\;\\ {}{Y}_2^{D_{k_{il}}}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}1\kern0.24em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{nontransmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\ \mathrm{is}\;H(t)\\ {}0\kern0.24em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{nontransmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\ \mathrm{is}\;h(t)\end{array}\right.,\end{array} \) for the affected offspring \( {D}_{k_{il}} \),
and \( \begin{array}{l}{Y}_1^{{\overline{D}}_{k_{il}}}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}\hbox{-} 1\kern0.36em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{transmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\;\mathrm{is}\;H\;(t)\\ {}0\kern0.24em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{transmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\;\mathrm{is}\;h\;(t)\end{array}\right.,\;\\ {}{Y}_2^{{\overline{D}}_{k_{il}}}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}\hbox{-} 1\kern0.24em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{nontransmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\ \mathrm{is}\;H(t)\\ {}0\kern0.24em \mathrm{if}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{nontransmitted}\;\mathrm{paternal}\;\mathrm{allele}\;\mathrm{at}\;t\ \mathrm{is}\;h(t)\end{array}\right.,\end{array} \) for the unaffected offspring \( {\overline{D}}_{k_{il}} \). Then, we define the preferential transmission statistic \( {Y}_{T_{k_{il}}}(t)={Y}_1^{D_{k_{il}}}(t)-{Y}_2^{D_{k_{il}}}(t) \) for the paternal side and \( {X}_{T_{k_{il}}}(t)={X}_1^{D_{k_{il}}}(t)-{X}_2^{D_{k_{il}}}(t) \) for the maternal side for a trio; similarly, the preferential transmission statistic \( {Y}_{U_{k_{il}}}(t)={Y}_1^{{\overline{D}}_{k_{il}}}(t)-{Y}_2^{{\overline{D}}_{k_{il}}}(t) \) and \( {X}_{U_{k_{il}}}(t)={X}_1^{{\overline{D}}_{k_{il}}}(t)-{X}_2^{{\overline{D}}_{k_{il}}}(t) \) for an unaffected trio for both parental sides, respectively, where k _{ il } = 1, …, N _{1il } (for unaffected), N _{1il } (N _{2il }) is the number of affected (unaffected) offspring in the family i at the l ^{th} time point, i = 1, … n, l = 1, …, L (L = 1 or 4 in this study).
where \( {\widehat{\pi}}_j \) is the average of nontransmitted parental alleles in the sample.
The estimating equations were solved iteratively for parameters τ, N, C, and C*, where τ and C are the 2 parameters of interest. The variance of the disease locus position estimate was estimated to make inferences about the disease locus position (τ) and its genetic effect (C) [2]. Theoretically, the genetic effect of τ, characterized by C, is the transmission probability that the affected offspring will carry the disease allele, H, at τ. Detailed derivations for case-parent trios in a cross-sectional design can be found in Chiu et al. [2, 5]. We will present the details of this proposed methodology elsewhere.
Significant and consistent estimates of disease locus positions and their genetic effects using “Ever” and “Progression” phenotypes
Gene* | Ever | Progression | Previous hits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( \widehat{\tau} \) ± SE | Ĉ | p Value | \( \widehat{\tau} \) ± SE | Ĉ | p Value | ||
FBLN2 | 13.6464 ± 0.00026 | 0.80 | 8.85 × 10^{−7} | 13.6462 ± 0.00030 | 0.88 | 2.47 × 10^{−6} | L |
C3orf19 | 14.6810 ± 0.00099 | 0.34 | 1.61 × 10^{−12} | 14.6802 ± 0.0010 | 0.34 | 6.87 × 10^{−11} | L |
C3orf20 | 14.7245 ± 0.00077 | 0.51 | 1.31 × 10^{−6} | 14.7244 ± 0.00091 | 0.45 | 2.81 × 10^{−7} | L |
OSBPL10 | 31.6853 ± 0.00051 | 0.41 | 7.69 × 10^{−8} | 31.6856 ± 0.00024 | 0.62 | 3.95 × 10^{−6} | LG |
CMTM8 | 32.3186 ± 0.00080 | 0.56 | 6.01 × 10^{−6} | 32.3183 ± 0.00052 | 0.70 | 1.20 × 10^{−5} | |
BSN | 49.6596 ± 0.00062 | 0.83 | 3.42 × 10^{−8} | 49.6594 ± 0.00077 | 0.77 | 3.58 × 10^{−6} | |
RFT1 | 53.1117 ± 0.0012 | 0.37 | 4.07 × 10^{−6} | 53.1111 ± 0.0012 | 0.36 | 2.54 × 10^{−5} | |
ADAMTS9 | 64.5214 ± 0.00028 | 0.53 | 1.05 × 10^{−11} | 64.5216 ± 0.00030 | 0.54 | 2.54 × 10^{−11} | L |
EPHA3 | 89.6014 ± 0.00042 | 0.80 | 1.41 × 10^{−6} | 89.6018 ± 0.00040 | 0.89 | 1.19 × 10^{−5} | |
EPHA6 | 98.2999 ± 0.00047 | 0.41 | 3.57 × 10^{−8} | 98.2997 ± 0.00052 | 0.48 | 7.3 × 10^{−7} | L |
C3orf52 | 113.3097 ± 0.0026 | 0.62 | 6.55 × 10^{−9} | 113.3088 ± 0.0030 | 0.58 | 7.29 × 10^{−6} | L |
SIDT1 | 114.7743 ± 0.00039 | 0.78 | 8.45 × 10^{−7} | 114.7741 ± 0.00071 | 0.67 | 8.46 × 10^{−6} | L |
IFT122 | 130.7107 ± 0.0012 | 0.57 | 1.10 × 10^{−5} | 130.7118 ± 0.00060 | 0.71 | 4.90 × 10^{−7} | |
RBP1 | 140.7325 ± 0.00019 | 0.65 | 6.40 × 10^{−7} | 140.7345 ± 0.00033 | 0.42 | 3.89 × 10^{−11} | L |
PLOD2 | 147.3469 ± 0.00098 | 0.34 | 3.56 × 10^{−6} | 147.3469 ± 0.0016 | 0.34 | 3.02 × 10^{−5} | L |
LEKR1 | 158.2181 ± 0.00036 | 0.72 | 1.66 × 10^{−10} | 158.2183 ± 0.00043 | 0.77 | 4.35 × 10^{−10} | L |
RSRC1 | 159.4005 ± 0.00059 | 0.51 | 4.35 × 10^{−6} | 159.4003 ± 0.00064 | 0.51 | 1.64 × 10^{−5} | L |
ECT2 | 174.0021 ± 0.00064 | 0.88 | 1.91 × 10^{−6} | 174.0022 ± 0.00063 | 1.00 | 2.92 × 10^{−7} | L |
PEX5L | 181.0080 ± 0.0078 | 0.29 | 2.99 × 10^{−5} | 181.0145 ± 0.013 | 0.23 | 5.23 × 10^{−7} | LG |
LPP | 189.5573 ± 0.00035 | 0.50 | 1.71 × 10^{−6} | 189.5574 ± 0.00022 | 0.53 | 7.05 × 10^{−6} | |
OSTN | 192.4272 ± 0.0018 | 0.73 | 5.33 × 10^{−14} | 192.4301 ± 0.0012 | 0.80 | 4.11 × 10^{−9} | G |
Significant and consistent estimates of disease locus positions and their genetic effects using “Baseline” and “Longitudinal” phenotypes
Gene* | Baseline | Longitudinal | Previous hits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( \widehat{\tau} \) ± SE | Ĉ | p Value | \( \widehat{\tau} \) ± SE | Ĉ | p Value | ||
GRM7^{†} | 7.4917 ± 0.00048 | 0.44 | 2.87 × 10^{−5} | 7.4871 ± 0.0015 | 0.75 | 6.04 × 10^{−14} | LG |
SLC4A7 | 27.4521 ± 0.000045 | 0.30 | 0.014 | 27.4520 ± 0.000067 | 0.30 | 0.0024 | LG |
SCN10A | 38.7559 ± 0.0089 | 0.088 | 0.019 | 38.7611 ± 0.0018 | 0.73 | 0.0022 | |
AC092058.3 | 39.5105 ± 0.0020 | 0.076 | 0.036 | 39.5102 ± 0.00024 | 0.21 | 0.00022 | |
LTF | 46.4731 ± 0.00059 | 0.17 | 0.046 | 46.4733 ± 0.00045 | 0.31 | 0.0099 | |
NEK4 | 52.7326 ± 0.00071 | 0.83 | 0.00010 | 52.7277 ± 0.0024 | 0.86 | 0.00024 | |
FAM116A | 57.6101 ± 0.00023 | 0.69 | 2.58 × 10^{−6} | 57.6107 ± 0.00032 | 0.61 | 0.011 | |
LRIG1 | 66.5968 ± 0.0026 | 0.28 | 0.018 | 66.5961 ± 0.00064 | 0.60 | 0.0022 | L |
TBC1D23 | 101.5084 ± 0.0011 | 0.46 | 0.026 | 101.5148 ± 0.0010 | 0.73 | 0.0011 | L |
ALCAM | 106.7625 ± 0.00069 | 0.83 | 0.028 | 106.7598 ± 0.00041 | 0.62 | 0.00013 | L |
PLCXD2 | 112.9440 ± 0.00087 | 0.50 | 0.0016 | 112.9422 ± 0.0062 | 0.48 | 0.00020 | L |
LSAMP | 117.0676 ± 0.00060 | 0.43 | 0.00022 | 117.0671 ± 0.00025 | 0.86 | 0.00012 | L |
ILDR1 | 123.2009 ± 0.0011 | 0.70 | 0.013 | 123.2008 ± 0.00098 | 0.91 | 0.023 | |
PDIA5 | 124.3194 ± 0.0076 | 0.065 | 0.0028 | 124.3225 ± 0.0020 | 0.68 | 0.0086 | |
HPS3 | 150.3484 ± 0.0016 | 0.14 | 1.65 × 10^{−5} | 150.3521 ± 0.00063 | 0.77 | 0.0080 | L |
CASRL1 | 157.2304 ± 0.0037 | 0.19 | 0.012 | 157.2295 ± 0.00094 | 0.28 | 0.031 | L |
C3orf55 | 158.7595 ± 0.00074 | 0.90 | 0.0051 | 158.7634 ± 0.0012 | 0.91 | 3.90 × 10^{−6} | L |
IGF2BP2 | 186.9725 ± 0.00018 | 0.74 | 0.041 | 186.9719 ± 0.00031 | 1.00 | 0.031 | |
FETUB ^{ ‡ } | 187.8470 ± 0.00031 | 0.38 | 0.0012 | 187.8503 ± 0.017 | 0.042 | 0.0021 | |
IL1RAP ^{ ‡ } | 191.8193 ± 0.012 | 0.074 | 0.0060 | 191.8203 ± 0.0012 | 0.79 | 4.75 × 10^{−6} | |
C3orf21 ^{ ‡ } | 196.2815 ± 0.0036 | 0.62 | <10^{−18} | 196.2821 ± 0.0011 | 0.97 | 0.00057 | |
KIAA0226 | 198.9161 ± 0.0038 | 0.071 | 0.024 | 198.9168 ± 0.00076 | 0.15 | 0.022 |
Results and discussion
A total of 119 (11 %), 79 (7 %), 49 (4 %), and 42 (4 %) of 1095 genes had a significant genetic effect (P < 4.57 × 10^{−5} with Bonferroni correction) based on hypertension status at “Ever,” “Progression,” baseline (“Baseline”), and 4 visits (“Longitudinal”), respectively. There are only 3 significantly associated genes (P ≤ 0.05) for baseline and longitudinal phenotypes duplicated with the significantly associated genes for “Ever” and “Progression” outcomes: FETUB, IL1RAP, and C3orf21. Several hits identified here have been reported from linkage or GWAS studies. Table 2 shows genes with a significant genetic effect (P < 4.57 × 10^{−5}). Table 3 presents the genes that are significant at a significance level of 0.05. Only 1 gene, GRM7, is significant at the level of P < 4.57 × 10^{−5}.
Figures 1 and 2 display the 95 % confidence intervals for the estimate of the hypertension locus position for the 4 phenotypes centered at the estimated disease locus position. The comparison is shown for the genes listed in Tables 2 and 3. The standard errors of the estimates for the disease locus position are smaller in 64 % of the genes based on longitudinal data (Table 3) compared to those based on baseline data. This is because those incidence cases included in “Progression” were also included in the analysis of “Ever.” Only prevalent cases, a relatively small proportion, are additionally included in the analysis of “Ever.” Thus, the results from “Progression” and “Ever” are similar.
Conclusions
Methods of genetic analysis rely heavily on correlations among family members’ outcomes to infer genetic effects, whereas longitudinal studies allow investigators to study factors’ effects on outcomes and changes over time [1]. To retrieve full information from longitudinal family data, appropriate statistical approaches are crucial. We proposed a multipoint linkage disequilibrium approach accounting for multilevel correlations between markers per subject, within-subject longitudinal observations, and subjects within families, aiming to correctly localize the disease locus and assess its genetic effects. This approach has several advantages: it allows us to estimate the disease locus position, the disease locus’s genetic effect, and the 95 % confidence intervals without specifying a disease genetic mode and yet making full use of the markers and repeated measurements. In addition, this approach treats the genotype data as random conditional on the phenotype, eliminating the problem of ascertainment bias. We applied this approach to the baseline and longitudinal prevalence/incidence of hypertension events. The efficiency of parameter estimates was similar for the “Ever” and “Progression” categories, but was improved with repeated longitudinal outcomes compared to the use of “Baseline” only. This difference between analyses might largely result from the different total sample sizes and proportions of hypertensive subjects for different phenotypes. Several identified genes on chromosome 3 for hypertension were consistent with findings from previous linkage and association studies. Despite its advantages, this proposed approach also has limitations; for example, covariate adjustment is not available.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We deeply appreciate the reviewers’ thorough reviews and constructive suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of this manuscript. This project was supported by a grant from Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST102-2118-M-400-005) and a grant from the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan (PH-103-pp-04). We thank Ms. Karen Klein (Biomedical Research Services and Administration, Wake Forest School of Medicine) for her editorial contributions to this manuscript.
Declarations
This article has been published as part of BMC Proceedings Volume 10 Supplement 7, 2016: Genetic Analysis Workshop 19: Sequence, Blood Pressure and Expression Data. Summary articles. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://bmcproc.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-10-supplement-7. Publication of the proceedings of Genetic Analysis Workshop 19 was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R01 GM031575.
Authors’ contributions
YFC designed the overall study, CYL conducted statistical analyses, YFC and FCH drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Gauderman WJ, Macgregor S, Briollais L, Scurrah K, Tobin M, Park T, et al. Longitudinal data analysis in pedigree studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2003;25 Suppl 1:S18–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chiu YF, Lee CY, Kao HY, Pan WH, Hsu FC. Analysis of family- and population-based samples using multiple linkage disequilibrium mapping. Ann Hum Genet. 2013;77(3):251–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu F, Kirichenko A, Axenovich TI, van Duijn CM, Aulchenko YS. An approach for cutting large and complex pedigrees for linkage analysis. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16(7):854–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(3):559–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Chiu YF, Liang KY, Pan WH. Incorporating covariates into multipoint association mapping in the case-parent design. Hum Hered. 2010;69(4):229–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar