Title |
Learning genetic epistasis using Bayesian network scoring criteria
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2011
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-12-89 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Xia Jiang, Richard E Neapolitan, M Michael Barmada, Shyam Visweswaran |
Abstract |
Gene-gene epistatic interactions likely play an important role in the genetic basis of many common diseases. Recently, machine-learning and data mining methods have been developed for learning epistatic relationships from data. A well-known combinatorial method that has been successfully applied for detecting epistasis is Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR). Jiang et al. created a combinatorial epistasis learning method called BNMBL to learn Bayesian network (BN) epistatic models. They compared BNMBL to MDR using simulated data sets. Each of these data sets was generated from a model that associates two SNPs with a disease and includes 18 unrelated SNPs. For each data set, BNMBL and MDR were used to score all 2-SNP models, and BNMBL learned significantly more correct models. In real data sets, we ordinarily do not know the number of SNPs that influence phenotype. BNMBL may not perform as well if we also scored models containing more than two SNPs. Furthermore, a number of other BN scoring criteria have been developed. They may detect epistatic interactions even better than BNMBL.Although BNs are a promising tool for learning epistatic relationships from data, we cannot confidently use them in this domain until we determine which scoring criteria work best or even well when we try learning the correct model without knowledge of the number of SNPs in that model. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 3% |
Germany | 2 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 102 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 35% |
Researcher | 22 | 19% |
Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
Other | 16 | 14% |
Unknown | 8 | 7% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 42 | 37% |
Computer Science | 30 | 27% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 9% |
Mathematics | 4 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
Other | 9 | 8% |
Unknown | 14 | 12% |