Integrated Analysis of Gene Expression Differences in Twins Discordant for Disease and Binary Phenotypes
read more
References
Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other
Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository
Related Papers (5)
Variations in genome-wide gene expression in identical twins – a study of primary osteoblast-like culture from female twins discordant for osteoporosis
Frequently Asked Questions (10)
Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Integrated analysis of gene expression differences in twins discordant for disease and binary phenotypes" ?
In the future, the authors aim to collect twin data in an unbiased manner to ascertain the role of reverse causation in expression to deconvolve the role of phenotype on gene expression change. The authors hope that their work will inspire future studies to further understand the role of the environment in multiple phenotypes, eventually leading to the identification of environment-specific influences in multiple disease phenotypes.
Q3. How did Sweeney et al. determine the false positive rate?
In order to minimize the false positive rate (FPR), Sweeney et al. suggested to utilize stringent significance and effect size thresholds6.
Q4. What was the number of significant genes in the disease-disease pair?
The disease-disease pair with the most number of overlapping significant genes was OB and UC (13 genes or 0.06% of the total possible genes).
Q5. How many unique significant genes were measured across all the datasets?
the total number of unique significant genes across all the seven datasets was 1,286 out of the 25,154 total number of genes measured across all of those datasets (5%).
Q6. How many genes were differentially expressed in discordant twins?
The authors identified 19 out of the 25,154 total genes (0.08%) that were differentially expressed in discordant twin samples across multiple phenotypes (FDR-corrected p-value of mean difference less than 0.05, mean difference greater than the absolute value effect size threshold of the 95th percentile, and measured in more than one study; Fig. S2).
Q7. How many significant genes were found in the seven studies?
Across the seven studies (phenotypes) incorporated into their analyses, the authors found that intelligence quotient (IQ) had 30 of the most significant genes (with FDR less than 0.05 and mean difference greater than the absolute value effect size threshold of the 95th percentile).
Q8. How many genes were detected by the meta-analytic method?
The authors hypothesize that the use of this technique provides better power than alternative transcript-level methods; in fact, the authors showed that the authors were able to detect more genes (found total of 10 significant genes) than the Byrnes et al.10 investigation (this study detected none).
Q9. What did the authors do to enhance comparison among the seven studies?
To enhance comparison among the seven studies, the authors also computed the rank order of the expression differences in each study (available in the R Shiny web application: http://apps.chiragjpgroup.org/disctwinexprdb/).Last, the authors also performed FDR (False Discovery Rate [Benjamini-Hochberg]7) correction on the p-values for each gene for each study.
Q10. What was the number of significant genes in the disease phenotype?
The non-disease phenotype with the highest total number of significant genes was IQ (677 significant genes) and the one with the least was physical activity (PA, 15 significant genes).