Integrating genome-wide association studies with protein-protein interaction data identifies novel candidate susceptibility genes for incident coronary heart disease that would be missed by single-marker analysis.
BACKGROUND: Network-based approaches may leverage genome-wide association (GWA) analysis by testing for the aggregate association across several pathway members. We aimed to examine if networks of genes that represent experimentally determined protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are enriched in genes associated with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Genome-wide association analyses of approximately ≈700,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 899 incident CHD cases and 1823 age- and sex-matched controls within the Nurses' Health and the Health Professionals Follow-up Studies were used to assign genewise P values. A large database of PPIs was used to assemble 8351 unbiased protein complexes and corresponding gene sets. Superimposed genewise P values were used to rank gene sets based on their enrichment in genes associated with CHD. After correcting for the number of complexes tested, 1 gene set was overrepresented in CHD-associated genes (P=0.002). Centered on the β1-adrenergic receptor gene (ADRB1), this complex included 18 protein interaction partners that have not been identified as candidate loci for CHD. Of the 19 genes in the top complex, 5 are involved in abnormal cardiovascular system physiological features based on knockout mice (4-fold enrichment; Fisher exact test, P=0.006). Ingenuity pathway analysis revealed that canonical pathways, especially related to blood pressure regulation, were significantly enriched in the genes from the top complex. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of a GWA study with PPI data successfully identifies a set of candidate susceptibility genes for incident CHD that would have been missed in single-marker GWA analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jensen et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: