Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: An empirical comparison of several recent epistatic interaction detection methods
Authors: Wang, Y. 
Liu, G. 
Feng, M.
Wong, L. 
Issue Date: 2011
Citation: Wang, Y., Liu, G., Feng, M., Wong, L. (2011). An empirical comparison of several recent epistatic interaction detection methods. Bioinformatics 27 (21) : 2936-2943. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
Abstract: Motivation: Many new methods have recently been proposed for detecting epistatic interactions in GWAS data. There is, however, no in-depth independent comparison of these methods yet. Results: Five recent methods-TEAM, BOOST, SNPHarvester, SNPRuler and Screen and Clean (SC)-are evaluated here in terms of power, type-1 error rate, scalability and completeness. In terms of power, TEAM performs best on data with main effect and BOOST performs best on data without main effect. In terms of type-1 error rate, TEAM and BOOST have higher type-1 error rates than SNPRuler and SNPHarvester. SC does not control type-1 error rate well. In terms of scalability, we tested the five methods using a dataset with 100 000 SNPs on a 64 bit Ubuntu system, with Intel (R) Xeon(R) CPU 2.66 GHz, 16GB memory. TEAM takes ~36 days to finish and SNPRuler reports heap allocation problems. BOOST scales up to 100 000 SNPs and the cost is much lower than that of TEAM. SC and SNPHarvester are the most scalable. In terms of completeness, we study how frequently the pruning techniques employed by these methods incorrectly prune away the most significant epistatic interactions. We find that, on average, 20% of datasets without main effect and 60% of datasets with main effect are pruned incorrectly by BOOST, SNPRuler and SNPHarvester. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Source Title: Bioinformatics
ISSN: 13674803
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr512
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


checked on Jul 17, 2018


checked on Jul 17, 2018

Page view(s)

checked on Jun 30, 2018

Google ScholarTM



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.