Minimizing Time When Applying Bootstrap to Contingency Tables Analysis of Genome-Wide Data

  • Francesco Sambo
  • Barbara Di Camillo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7219)

Abstract

Bootstrap resampling is starting to be frequently applied to contingency tables analysis of Genome-Wide SNP data, to cope with the bias in genetic effect estimates, the large number of false positive associations and the instability of the lists of SNPs associated with a disease. The bootstrap procedure, however, increases the computational complexity by a factor B, where B is the number of bootstrap samples.

In this paper, we study the problem of minimizing time when applying bootstrap to contingency tables analysis and propose two levels of optimization of the procedure. The first level of optimization is based on an alternative representation of bootstrap replicates, bootstrap histograms, which is exploited to avoid unnecessary computations for repeated subjects in each bootstrap replicate. The second level of optimization is based on an ad-hoc data structure, the bootstrap tree, exploited for reusing computations on sets of subjects which are in common across more than one bootstrap replicate. The problem of finding the best bootstrap tree given a set of bootstrap replicates is tackled with best improvement local search. Different constructive procedures and local search operators are proposed to solve it.

The two proposed levels of optimization are tested on a real Genome-Wide SNP dataset and both are proven to significantly decrease computation time.

Keywords

Bootstrap Contingency tables analysis Genome-Wide SNP Data Local Search 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balding, D.J.: A tutorial on statistical methods for population association studies. Nature Reviews Genetics 7(10), 781–791 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Efron, B.: More Efficient Bootstrap Computations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85(409), 79–89 (1990)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faye, L., Sun, L., Dimitromanolakis, A., Bull, S.: A flexible genome-wide bootstrap method that accounts for ranking- and threshold-selection bias in GWAS interpretation and replication study design. Statistics in Medicine 30(15), 1898–1912 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.: The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer (February 2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    He, Q., Lin, D.Y.: A variable selection method for genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 27, 1–8 (2011)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoos, H.H., Stützle, T.: Stochastic Local Search: Foundations & Applications (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Artificial Intelligence). Morgan Kaufmann (September 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu, J., Su, Z.: Short communication: Bootstrap quantile estimation via importance resampling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 52, 5136–5142 (2008)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johns, M.: Importance sampling for bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 709–714 (1988)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jurman, G., Merler, S., Barla, A., Paoli, S., Galea, A., Furlanello, C.: Algebraic stability indicators for ranked lists in molecular profiling. Bioinformatics 24(2), 258–264 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ku, C.S., Loy, E.Y., Pawitan, Y., Chia, K.S.: The pursuit of genome-wide association studies: where are we now? Journal of Human Genetics 55(4), 195–206 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sambo, F., Trifoglio, E., Di Camillo, B., Toffolo, G., Cobelli, C.: Bag of Naïve Bayes: biomarker selection and classification from genome-wide SNP data. BMC Bioinformatics 13(S14), S2 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    So, H.C., Yip, B.H.K., Sham, P.C.: Estimating the total number of susceptibility variants underlying complex diseases from genome-wide association studies. PLoS One 5(11), e13898 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun, L., Dimitromanolakis, A., Faye, L., Paterson, A., Waggott, D., Bull, S.: Br-squared: A practical solution to the winner’s curse in genome-wide scans. Human Genetics 129(5), 545–552 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium: Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447(7145), 661–678 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeggini, E., et al.: Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data and large-scale replication identifies additional susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. Nature Genetics 40(5), 638–645 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou, H., Lange, K.: A fast procedure for calculating importance weights in bootstrap sampling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 55, 26–33 (2011)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Sambo
    • 1
  • Barbara Di Camillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of PadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations