Random forests on Hadoop for genome-wide association studies of multivariate neuroimaging phenotypes

Random Forest regression

We call $\mathcal{D}$ the data set comprising N unrelated individuals or samples genotyped at P biallelic markers. For each individual, the markers are arranged in a data vector x _i = (x_{i 1}, x _{i 2}, ..., x _iP ), for i = 1, ..., N. Depending on the coding scheme, different genetic models can be applied. For instance, assuming an additive genetic model, each x _ij represents the count of minor alleles recorded at the j _th locus--homozygote of minor allele is 2, heterozygote is 1 and homozygote of major allele is 0. The associated quantitative trait for each subject is assumed to be a Q-dimensional real-valued vector which we denote as y _i = (y_{i 1}, y_{i 2}, ..., y _iQ ), with i = 1, ..., N. In imaging genetics study designs, for instance, it is common that the sample size N is much smaller than min{P, Q}.

The RF algorithm builds an ensemble of regression trees, each one independently learned on a boot-strapped version of $\mathcal{D}$. The required number of trees in the forest, Ntree, is a user-defined parameter. The training data set for each tree is obtained by randomly sampling N subjects from $\mathcal{D}$ with replacement. The tree building process is accomplished by introducing a second layer of randomness and involves selecting a random subset of Mtry candidate SNPs at each node, among the P available SNPs, in order to reduce the correlation among trees. In each tree, the best split at a node is determined by evaluating a split function for each value of a candidate SNP, and then selecting the SNP that maximises this function (see also Equation 2). To reduce bias, the trees are grown to a maximum depth with no pruning or otherwise until a minimum sample size has been reached; by default, we set this value to 5 for univariate trait and 20 for multivariate traits. We only consider binary trees, although in principle multi-way splits could also be accommodated with minor changes.

For each tree, all the subjects in $\mathcal{D}$ that do not become part of the bootstrap sample used for training are collected together to form an out-of-bag (OOB) sample, which is used as a testing set. Approximately 63.2% of the subjects in $\mathcal{D}$ are utilised as training data, while the remaining subjects are OOB samples. Each OOB sample is used to obtain an estimate for the prediction error (PE) for its tree and these estimates are then averaged across all trees to provide an overall estimate [22].

Although RF is deemed to be relatively insensitive to the choice of Ntree and Mtry, in practice, for large-scale GWAS involving a massive number of predictors, and possibly multivariate responses, these parameters must be tuned to achieve an optimal predictive performance and increase the statistical power of the algorithm to detect the true causative SNPs. As the number of trees in the forest increases, the OOB error rate is expected to converge to a theoretical prediction error according to the law of large numbers [22]. It is therefore important to select a sufficiently large number of trees to guarantee optimal performance and stable ranking.

Split functions for multivariate traits

where $V\left(\mathrm{\Theta },j\right)$ is the Q × Q covariance matrix estimated from $\mathcal{D}\left(j\right)$, and depends on an unknown parameter vector $\mathrm{\Theta }.$ A fully parametrized covariance matrix requires Q(Q + 1)/2 parameters. With low sample sizes, a more parsimonious model is generally preferable so that $\mathrm{\Theta }.$ has only a few unknown parameters. It is standard procedure to set the covariance matrices at the daughter nodes equal to the estimated covariance matrix at the parent node, in order to guarantee that the split function remains positive [23]. This procedure has the additional benefit of reducing the number of computations. We call Standard RF the algorithm that uses the splitting criterion (1).

Every candidate SNP is tested to split the node, and the one with the highest ϕ(j) is selected. Once the best split has been found, the daughter nodes become new parent nodes and the covariance matrices are estimated again.

where N(j) indicates the sample size at node j. This strategy provides an equivalent but computationally more efficient way of evaluating the split function of Eq. (2). The evaluation of each SS(j) term has a cost complexity of O(N(j)²) instead of N (j) × Q. We call Distance-based RF the algorithm that uses the splitting criterion (3).

Measure of variable importance for SNP ranking

One of the attractive features of RF for GWAS consists in its ability to perform SNP ranking by computing a measure of variable importance [5]. A commonly used and computationally simple procedure for SNP ranking consists in monitoring the value of the split function ϕ(j) every time a particular SNP has been selected, in each tree. This score, which we will refer to as the information gain importance score, usually produces ranking that are comparable with other variable importance measures, including those that rely on computationally intensive permutation procedures [22]. In the context of genetics studies, SNPs with the highest importance score are preferred candidates for further exploration. In the literature, this approach has been successfully used as a prescreening step to prioritise predictive SNPs [26].

Hadoop implementation

RF implementations generally build trees sequentially. However, a sequential approach is highly inefficient, especially when each tree involves a large number of SNPs, and many trees are needed in order to obtain reliable measures of SNP importance and estimates of prediction error. RF can be easily parallelised because all trees are independently learned from randomised versions of the data. We describe here a parallel version of the RF regression algorithm that we have implemented using the MapReduce programming model for deployment on large Hadoop clusters. Broadly speaking, the approach consists in letting each node in the cluster build a certain number of trees in the forest, and then letting the system collect and aggregate the partial results from all trees in the ensemble, in an automated and fault-tolerant fashion.

The MapReduce model involves three phases: the map phase, the shuffle phase and the reduce phase. Each one of the map and reduce phase has key-value pairs as input and output. The shuffle phase shuffles the output of map phase to the input of reduce phase evenly using the MapReduce library. The map phase runs a user-defined mapper function on a set of key-value pairs [k _j , v _j ] taken as input, and generates a set of intermediate key-value pairs. In the map phase of our application, each input key corresponds to a unique tree ID and value is NULL since we load the full data set to build trees. A user-defined number of mappers, nmap, are executed whereby each mapper function learns one or more decision trees from bootstrapped versions of the data set. The output of the map phase consists of three types of information: (1) Sample identifier (key) and predictive value, which is then used to estimate the OOB error rate at the reduce phase; (2) SNP identifier (key) and the decrease in sum-of-squares (value), which is used to obtain the SNP importance scores at the reduce phase; (3) Sample pair identifier (key) and its proximity (value), which is used to produce the final proximity matrix extracted from RF. All these outputs from mappers are sorted, shuffled, and copied to reducers by Hadoop. An illustration of this initial process is given in Figure 1. The Hadoop job initially distributes the data set to each map task using a DistributedCache mechanism, which copies the read-only files on to the slave nodes before launching a job. In our implementation, each map task loads the full version of the data set, which is then bootstrapped and used to learn each tree. In this illustration, Ntree = 3, and each one of the three mappers builds one tree. When the number of required trees is larger than the total number of mappers, each mapper builds more than one tree.

The output from all the mapper functions, consisting of key-value pairs, is then sorted, shuffled and copied to the reduce tasks, which receive their input in the form of [k _j , [v _{j 1}, v _{j 2}, ...,]] pairs, where the first element can be SNP or sample identifier and the second element is a list of values associated with that SNP or sample. The reduce tasks run a user-defined reducer function, and generate an output again in the form of key-value pairs to be saved on file. The reduce tasks compute information gain importance score by summing up all the ϕ(j) evaluations obtained by the individual trees in the map phase. Again, the computations are equally distributed across reducers. For instance, in the bottom part of Figure 1, each reducer generates a partial list of key-value pairs containing SNP id and its information gain importance score. These lists are eventually saved on file and eventually they are joined to obtain the final output.

This parallel RF regression algorithm has been implemented in Java. It can be run in standalone, pseudo-distributed, and fully distributed mode. The current version, which supports biallelic markers, gives users the options to calculate OOB, variable importance scores, and the sample proximity matrix. Both standard and distance-based splitting criteria are available, and the Euclidean distance featuring in (3) could be easily replaced by other distances. For the standard RF version, currently both the Euclidean and Mahalanobis distances are available. An installation and user guide is available from the web site.

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort

This work was motivated by experimental data produced by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a moderate to highly heritable condition, and a growing list of genetic variants have been associated with greater susceptibility to develop early- and late-onset AD [27]. We have obtained genotypes for 253 unrelated subjects comprising 99 AD patients and 154 elderly healthy controls (CN). Genotyping was performed using the Human610-Quad Bead-Chip, which includes 620, 901 SNPs [28]. Subjects are unrelated, and all of European ancestry, and passed screening for evidence of population stratification using the procedure described in [19]. For this study, we include only autosomal SNPs, and additionally exclude SNPs with a genotyping rate <95%, a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium p-value < 5 × 10⁷, and a minor allele frequency < 0.1. Missing genotypes were imputed as in [29].

For each subject in this study, longitudinal brain scans at 6, 12 and 24 months after the initial screening were available. Our multivariate quantitative trait provides a measure of structural change observed in the brain relative to baseline over the three time points. More specifically, each individual phenotype vector y _i consists of 148, 023 slope coefficients, one for each voxel, quantifying the temporal rate of linear brain tissue loss over time, and therefore providing a localised imaging signature of the disease. A more detailed description of the preprocessing steps and the procedure used to extract this imaging signatures can be found in [30].

Performance and scalability of PaRFR

Monte Carlo simulation studies were designed to compare the performance of our PaRFR software against other implementations of RF regression. In order to reduce the computational burden incurred in extensive and repeated simulations, we used a multivariate phenotype consisting of 100 voxels that were randomly selected from the 148, 023 available, and a set of 1, 000 SNPs randomly selected from the 434, 271 available markers. Using the 100 observed voxels, we estimated the phenotype sample covariance matrix, $\widehat{V}$ Each artificial dataset consisted of the 253 samples for which the multivariate phenotype vector y _i was generated by randomly drawing from a multivariate normal distribution with covariance matrix $\widehat{V}$ and such that the genetic effects explain approximately 8% of phenotypic variability. Genetic effects were induced using an additive model involving 5 randomly selected causative SNPs with minimum allele frequency (MAF) 0.2, analogously to the simulation procedure described in [29]. The use of real data is important as it preserves the original patterns of linkage disequilibrium observed in the real dataset.

We first report on simulation experiments aimed to test and validate our RF implementation. We compare the OOB error obtained by PaRFR against the analogous OOB error obtained by using a publicly available implementation of RF in R package randomForest. Since the R implementation only handles univariate responses, for this specific evaluation we take the average across phenotypes, $ȳ,$ as response. As can be seen in Figure 2 (left), the linear correlation coefficient between the two OOB errors is 0.91603 (p-value<0.001). Some discrepancy is expected due to the Monte Carlo error made during the tree building process. Secondly, we compare the two different node splitting criteria introduced in Section using the 100-dimensional artificial phenotypes. Figure 2 (right) shows that the two criteria produce highly correlated OOB errors, with a correlation coefficient of 0.93055 (pvalue<0.001). As before, the small difference in performance is explained by the randomness involved during the tree building process. In both cases, we report on average values obtained from 500 simulated data sets.

To assess the speedups that can be obtained by our implementation using the distance-based splitting function, we simulate a large dataset containing 1, 000 independent samples, 1 million SNPs and a 10, 000-dimensional phenotype. This analysis was run on a private cluster with 20 nodes. Each node had 24 GB memory and 16 processors with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 2.27 GHz. We configured each map and reduce task to have 800 MB memory, and the whole cluster capacity to run 400 map tasks and 100 reduce task.

We then compare the running time for different values of the Mtry parameter, ranging from 10 to 10, 000. Figure 3 shows the running time of the two methods on a log scale. When Mtry = 10, the distance-based RF is only 2 times faster than the Standard RF because of the initial time required to launch the cluster and load the data. As the value of Mtry increases, we observe at least a 10-fold speedup, indicating that significant running time savings can be obtained by using Distance-based RF for high-dimensional phenotypes.

To test the scalability of our implementation as the number of available nodes increases, we analyze the same size dataset with parameters Mtry = 1,000 and Ntree = 2,400. This analysis was run on our local cluster with 10, 20, 30 and 40 nodes, respectively. Figure 3 (right) shows that the running time decreases as more nodes are added and that, as expected, rough linear speedup is observed as the number of nodes increases. For instance, doubling the number of nodes from 20 to 40 yields a 40% reduction in running time.

A GWA study of Alzheimer's disease

SNP ranking

In order to illustrate the benefits of the proposed PaRFR algorithm, we carried out the analysis of the ADNI data set. A handful of genetic variants with very large effect size are known to be related to AD, and we aimed at detecting those genes despite the relatively low sample size as a demonstration that PaRFR provides a useful toolbox for imaging genetic studies. Only the observed quantitative traits, and not the actual clinical status, were used by the algorithm. It is widely believed that such endophenotypes carry more signal than the cruder case-control status thus requiring much smaller sample sizes.

The analysis was run on our local cluster using 20 nodes. Different Mtry and Ntree parameter values were initially tested to determine how sensitive the results were to changes in these values, and in order to identify optimal values for which a stable SNP ranking can be produced. In particular, we explored various combinations of 3 different Mtry values and Ntree values varying from 10 up to 50, 000. The performance of PaRFR was monitored as more trees were added to the RF, in blocks of 500; once an additional block of trees was added to the ensemble, a measure of SNP ranking agreement with the previous ranking, the Jaccard coefficient, was calculated. Figure 4 shows how the Jaccard coefficient varies as more trees are added to the forest; this result indicates that a stable ranking is obtained when more than 40, 000 trees have been added. Based on this results, we settled for Ntree = 50,000 and used an optimised value of Mtry = 72, 379 as these parameters provided a final stable ranking. The total running time was 60 hours on a 20-node cluster, and the final RF ranked 352, 968 SNPs. Since the process of inferring an individual tree took approximately 20 minutes, we estimate that a sequential implementation using the same machines would approximately take 700 days.

In Table 1 we report the top 10 ranked SNPs, using the information gain importance score. Any gene found to be within 10k bases of any of top 10 SNPs was considered mapped and, according to this criterion, we found 12 mapped genes. Several genes that have been reported to be linked to increased AD susceptibility are found in this list, including APOE4, TOMM40, PICALM and PVRL2 [20, 27, 28]. To further validate the relevance of the SNP rankings produced by PaRFR, we carried out a non-parametric analysis using permutation testing. First, we focused on the 47 well-known AD-linked genes reviewed by Saykin et al. [28], of which only 40 mapped to at least one SNP that had been ranked by PaRFR in our dataset. We then assessed the null hypothesis that the observed ranking of these genes, as produced by PaRFR, could be explained by chance only. For each mapped AD-linked gene g, we first obtained an observed score, ${ŝ}_g$, by averaging the ranks of all SNPs that map onto that gene. Operating under the null hypothesis that the AD-genes are randomly ranked, we permuted the SNP ranks 10, 000 times, and computed an empirical null distribution of the average rank score, s _g . A p-value was then computed using this null distribution. As an example, the null distribution of 2 important genes, TOMM40 and TNK1, is shown in Figure 5 along with the observed score (vertical lines). Besides APOE4 and TOMM40, which are also among the top 10 genes, we also found TNK1, NXPH1, ACE, and MYH13 to have statistically significant average ranks while controlling the false discovery rate at 10%.

Mapped Gene(s)	Ranked SNP(s)
TOMM40/APOE/APOC1*	APOE4
PICALM*	rs7938033
PVRL2*	rs2075650
NTNG2	rs7862808
NTM	rs12293070
SLC12A1	rs6493311/rs1531916
MEF2D	rs1750304
CD109	rs9352023
UNC5B	rs10762435
DPYD	rs496179

ADNI: top 10 genes and corresponding SNPs as ranked by PaRFR. The starred genes have been known to be linked with AD.

To understand the functional annotations of our top 12 mapped genes we used Gene Ontology (GO). GO provides a controlled vocabulary for evaluating complex function. The annotation files and GO tree (ver. 1.2) files for Homo Sapiens were downloaded from http://www.geneontology.org (dated 23 April 2011). As GO uses UniProt IDs while our genes were annotated using ENSEMBL IDs, we used Biomart to map UniProtKB accessions to Ensembl Gene IDs. This allows proper cross-comparisons. The through-path rule was applied for annotations to each gene, i.e. for a given GO term G annotated to some gene p, all the ancestral terms of G is also applied to p. This step was necessary because GO only maps a gene and/or its corresponding protein to the most specific term, which corresponds to some branch on the GO graph. To reduce redundancy and dependencies amongst the reported functional terms, informative biological process terms filtering was performed from the GO OBO file [31]. Significance testing for each cluster was performed using the hypergeometric test with Bonferroni correction (p-value ≤ 0.05). With this additional information, we were able to compare the list of our top 12 genes against the list of 47 known AD-linked genes. The comparison was carried out by comparing their GO terms and their corresponding agreement rate. The two lists of GO terms are available in Additional Files 1 and 2. Each list was tested against our reference database using a hypergeometric test with Bonferroni correction at a 5% nominal level. Overall, 47 GO terms from the top 12 mapped genes in our list were found to be statistically significant, and 14 of them agree with the 39 GO terms that are significant from the list of 47 known AD-linked genes. Compatibly with prior reports in the literature, these results further strengthen our belief that the top ranked genes are associated with an increased risk of AD.

Linking genetic and phenotypic diversity

Our PaRFR algorithm also estimates pair-wise genetic proximities in the form of a symmetric proximity matrix P of size N × N without any additional computations. Each element p _ij of this matrix indicates the genetic similarity between a pair of samples, which is obtained by considering the fraction of trees where the two samples appeared in the same leaf. A measure of genetic distance between any two samples is then simply obtained by taking d _ij = 1 − p _ij . Further insights into the heritability of AD can be gained by analysing such estimated genetic distances with regards to the observed phenotypic distances. Specifically, we explored whether there was an association between phenotypic diversity, obtained from the neuroimaging measurements, and the inferred genetic distances. When any of these distances is used for clustering samples, we would expect to be able to identify at least two well-separated clusters of points corresponding to two the clinical conditions represented in the ADNI cohort, i.e. AD patients and healthy controls, despite the fact that the clinical status was not used by the PaRFR algorithm. In order to verify this, we applied multidimensional scaling (MDS) with the objective to visualise both genetic and phenotypic distances on a two-dimensional Euclidean space.

Figure 6 shows the resulting MDS plots: (a) provides a 2D representation of the AD and CN samples obtained from the pair-wise genetic distances estimated by PaRFR, from which it can be noted a non-linear separation between AD and CN subjects; (b) provides a 2D representation of the AD and CN samples obtained from the pair-wise Euclidean distances applied to the neuroimaging signature consisting of 148, 023 voxels, which also shows a separation between the two phenotypically distinct groups, with higher variability characterising the AD samples. Remarkably, Figure 7 shows that the paired genetic and phenotypic distances are almost linearly associated; in these plots, the pair-wise comparisons are broken down by clinical group, i.e. AD-only samples, CN only samples, and combined samples. The linear correlation coefficients are 0.8248, 0.8245, and 0.7989, respectively, and indicate that the estimated genetic distance is predictive of phenotypic diversity. These results were further validated by performing a Mantel test of no association [32] between the paired genetic and phenotypic distance matrices in each one of the three cases; using 10, 000 permutations, all three tests were found to be statistically significant at the 0.01 nominal level.

Linking disease severity with mutation patterns

An alternative view of the phenotypic diversity characterising the samples is provided by the three-dimensional MDS plot of Figure 8. As in the two-dimensional representation of Figure 7, here it can be observed that the CN samples are more tightly clustered while the AD samples are more spread out, which is indicative of a large spectrum of disease progression. The variability in disease progression that can be observed here also reflects different degrees of disease severity, which in turn corresponds to different levels of cognitive impairment. It is therefore sensible to assume that the Euclidean distance between an AD-labelled point in this 3D space and a the centre of CN-labelled points provides a quantitative indicator of disease severity. For a complex disorder like AD, it is also plausible to assume that there is a large set of genetic markers, besides those with relatively large marginal effects, that jointly contribute to the disease and possibly determine its severity in each individual patient. Under the assumption that AD is the result of the cumulative effect of the dysfunction of multiple genes, we should then be able to observe an association between our indicator of disease severity and the number of mutations.

For this analysis we focused on the top 1, 000 SNPs ranked in decreasing order of importance by the PaRFR algorithm. For each one of these SNPs, we let the major allele be the reference state and the minor allele be the mutated state. In order to precisely define the severity of the disease for a given sample, we initially apply a hierarchical clustering algorithm to segment the samples into four non-overlapping clusters (from C1 to C4) as shown in Figure 9. The proportions of AD samples in these clusters are 11%, 16%, 63%, and 93%, respectively. The first notion of disease severity is defined as the Euclidean distance between an AD sample point and the centroid of points in the C1 cluster, which is mostly populated by CN samples. The second notion of severity is defined as the projected distance -- on the axis of disease progression-- of an AD sample to the centroid of C1 samples. The axis of disease progression is defined as the line connecting the centroids of the two extreme clusters, i.e. C1 and C4. We expect AD patients that are further away from the C1 centroid tend to have more mutated states compared to those that are nearer to the C1 centroid. Figure 10 is obtained by plotting the correlation between the count of mutated states and each one of two severity indicators defined above. Both correlations are positive and statistically significant at the 5% nominal level thus providing support for our hypothesis. From the bottom left part of the two plots, the CN samples are tightly clustered and have a lower number of mutated states, which is also in consistent with our expectations.

As a further refinement of this approach, we performed a second analysis in which we explored SNP/SNP combinations, or mutation patterns, in the genotypes containing mutated states that are frequently present in samples near the C4 centroid. For this analysis, we considered the top ranked 100 SNPs. All homozygous two-major-allele genotypes were removed in the data because disease-causing mutation patterns are expected to occur in the homozygous two-minor-allele genotypes and heterozygous genotypes. Only mutation patterns that were more frequently found in the C4 cluster were included in this analysis. Specifically, for each pattern we tested the null hypothesis that the proportions of that pattern in the C4 cluster and in the entire sample are equal, and only retained those patterns for which the null hypothesis was rejected at a 5% nominal level. We also required the frequency of each pattern to be at least 0.05 as a criterion for inclusion in the analysis. This procedure generated approximately 17, 000 mutation patterns. Figure 11 shows the correlation between the mutation pattern counts and our two measures of AD severity. Again, in both cases, the correlations are positive and statistically significant. As with the previous findings, this result supports our hypothesis that the number of mutation patterns carried by the AD samples is directly related to AD severity.