 Research article
 Open Access
 Published:
Stability SCAD: a powerful approach to detect interactions in largescale genomic study
BMC Bioinformatics volume 15, Article number: 62 (2014)
Abstract
Background
Evidence suggests that common complex diseases may be partially due to SNPSNP interactions, but such detection is yet to be fully established in a highdimensional smallsample (smallnlargep) study. A number of penalized regression techniques are gaining popularity within the statistical community, and are now being applied to detect interactions. These techniques tend to be overfitting, and are prone to false positives. The recently developed stability least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (_{S}LASSO) has been used to control familywise error rate, but often at the expense of power (and thus false negative results).
Results
Here, we propose an alternative stability selection procedure known as stability smoothly clipped absolute deviation (_{S}SCAD). Briefly, this method applies a smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) algorithm to multiple subsamples, and then identifies cluster ensemble of interactions across the subsamples. The proposed method was compared with _{S}LASSO and two kinds of traditional penalized methods by intensive simulation. The simulation revealed higher power and lower false discovery rate (FDR) with _{S}SCAD. An analysis using the new method on the previously published GWAS of lung cancer confirmed all significant interactions identified with _{S}LASSO, and identified two additional interactions not reported with _{S}LASSO analysis.
Conclusions
Based on the results obtained in this study, _{S}SCAD presents to be a powerful procedure for the detection of SNPSNP interactions in largescale genomic data.
Background
Highdimensional genomic data are becoming increasingly available to assist in the identification of genetic factors for complex diseases such as lung cancer. In particular, genomewide association studies (GWAS) have implicated a variety of genetic variants in many diseases, while only a small fraction of phenotypic variation was explained by those. This suggests that multilocus genegene or geneenvironment interactions must be considered [1].
Genegene interactions could be detected using a variety of methods [2]. For example, multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR, [3]) is a nonparametric and modelfree method that does not require any assumption of genetic mode of inheritance. However, MDR is inefficient in handling large scale genetic datasets [4]. Penalized regression methods such as least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) [5] and smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) [6] are also widely used for highdimensional data. LASSO is a useful tool for detecting genegene interactions with a broad range of simulations [7]. SCAD penalty has an oracle property, and thus it is more consistent with the actual effects than LASSO [6]. The crossvalidation is usually used for the choice of the amount of regularization in penalized regression methods (e.g., LASSO and SCAD), but it often includes too many noise variables. In an attempt to minimize such a problem, a modified LASSO penalized method, stability LASSO (_{S}LASSO), has been proposed to unify optimal shrinkage and variable selection in GWAS ([8]). Stability selection controls false discovery rate and renders crossvalidation practically unnecessary. Alexander and Lange (2011) claimed that _{S}LASSO could accurately identify the most important regions of GWAS, but in a simulation study _{S}LASSO offers less power than the simpler and less computationally intensive methods of marginal association testing [8].
It has been shown that the LASSO penalty could produce a bias even in the simple regression setting due to its linear increase of penalty on regression coefficients. To remedy this bias issue, a nonconcave penalty such as SCAD penalty was proposed. SCAD has the socalled oracle property, meaning that, in the asymptotic sense, it performs as effectively as if an analyst had known in advance which coefficients were zero and which ones were nonzero [6]. SCAD is capable of achieving the sparse estimator in combination with smaller biases in linear regression than LASSO. Here, we propose a new stability selection procedure in combination with SCAD penalization (_{S}SCAD). The new method was compared to _{S}LASSO using systematic simulations and a published GWAS study.
Methods
Ethics statement
This collaborative study was approved by the institutional review boards of China Medical University, Tongji Medical College, Fudan University, Nanjing Medical University, and Guangzhou Medical College with written informed consent from all participants.
Penalized logistic regression for casecontrol GWAS
Let y_{ i } denote the disease status of the individual i ( i =1,…,n): 1 for case and 0 for control. The SNP of individual i, x_{ ij }, is formatted as the count of a particular allele (0, 1, or 2) where j = 1,…,m. The logistic model below includes SNPSNP interaction terms:
where x_{ ij } and x_{ ij }x_{ ik } are main effect and interaction features, respectively.
Penalized likelihood method makes the fitting of a logistic model with smallnlargep computationally feasible. It also provides a mechanism for feature selection. L(θ) denotes the likelihood function of the above logistic model (1), where θ consists of those β and ξ. The penalized loglikelihood function takes the form
where p_{ λ }(•) is the penalty function characterized by a tuning parameter λ. The following penalty functions are used in LASSO and SCAD, respectively:
where a is a fixed constant larger than 2, the notation (·)_{+} stands for the positive part, and 1(·) denotes the indicator function.
When the penalized logistic regression model is fitted, a predetermined number of the components of θ can be forced to zero by tuning λ to a certain value. For a specific variable, estimation of the coefficient is nonzero if the coefficient exceeds the threshold or equals to zero. Thus the selection of tuning parameter is a crucial step at the application of penalized likelihood. This is usually accomplished with cross validation. We used cross validation predictive area under the ROC curve to choose the appropriate tuning parameter.
LASSO and SCAD with crossvalidated tuning parameter selection often lead to the inclusion of too many noise variables for highdimensional data [9]. For variable selection in smallnlargep genomic data, choosing the amount of regularization is more challenging than predicting where a crossvalidation scheme can be used. A false variable in variable selection may lead to apparent association with a disease phenotype either through chance or correlation with the true variables. Studies using highdimensional data often need to be validated due to false variables. Another practical issue here is reducing false variables while maintaining the power to detect relevant variables. To address this problem, Meinshausen and Bülmann [9] proposed a stability selection procedure that is relatively insensitive to the choice of tuning parameter [9].
In the current study, SCAD was used in variable selection in each subsample, and then stability selection was used to identify consensus ensemble of solutions.
Stability selection procedure

a)
Meinshausen and Bülmann (MB) stability selection methodology
Stability selection seeks to identify the nonzero entries S = {k:θ_{ k } ≠ 0} of a sparse parameter vector in above penalized logistic regression model (2). Assuming that the set I is a uniform random subsample of the index set {1,…,n}, the index set was used to subsample from the data to yield a subset Z(I). For the subset and a given regularization parameter λ ∈ Λ, penalized regression procedure was used to yield an estimate of θ_{ k }, i.e., ${\widehat{\mathrm{\theta}}}_{\mathrm{k}}^{\mathrm{\lambda}}\left(\mathrm{I}\right)$. Selection variable set was denoted as
The conditional selection probability of the kth covariate was defined as
The selection probabilities were naturally estimated by Monte Carlo method averaging over B times independent subsampling. Variables with high selection probabilities were retained, while those with low selection probabilities were discarded. For a cutoff π_{ thr } with 0 < π_{ thr } < 1 and a set of regularization parameters Λ, the stable selection variables set was defined as
The basic idea of the stability selection is to repeat the feature selection process in many randomly perturbed subsamples (e.g., by bootstrapping the samples in the original data set), and to include features that are relevant to majority of the subsamples. The baseline of the stability selection procedure is explained below:
Given a cutoff, compute the stable selection variables set ${\widehat{\mathit{S}}}^{\mathit{stable}}=\left\{\mathit{k}:\underset{\mathit{\lambda}\in \mathit{\Lambda}}{max}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi}}}_{\mathit{k}}^{\mathit{\lambda}}\ge {\mathit{\pi}}_{\mathit{thr}}\right\}$.
The threshold value π_{ thr } is a tuning parameter whose influence is very small. In principle, the tuning parameter of MB is based on the following theorem 1 of Meinshausen and Bülmann.
Theorem 1 (error control). Assuming that the distribution of $\left\{{1}_{\left\{\mathit{k}\in {\widehat{\mathit{S}}}^{\mathit{\lambda}}\right\}},\mathit{k}\in \mathit{N}\right\}$ is exchangeable for λ ∈ Λ, and the original procedure is not worse than random guessing. Let q_{ Λ } be the average number of selected variables, ${\mathit{q}}_{\mathit{\Lambda}}=\mathit{E}\left{\displaystyle \underset{\mathit{\lambda}\in \mathit{\Lambda}}{\cup}{\widehat{\mathit{S}}}^{\mathit{\lambda}}\left(\mathit{I}\right)}\right$, the expected number V of falsely selected variables is then bounded for π_{ thr } ∈ (1/2, 1] by

b)
Improvements of the MB stability selection
In the current study (where p ≫ n), the primary goal was controlling the false discovery rate (FDR):
An advantage of the stability selection is that the choice of the regularization parameters Λ does not have strong influence on the results, as long as λ is varied within a reasonable range [9]. To control FDR, we first chose a fixed regularization region Λ, and then chose the selective probability threshold π_{ thr } according to the above inequality (6).
We set a fixed regularization region as Λ = [λ_{min}, λ_{max}], which was decided by the number of selected variables q as follow: λ_{max} corresponded to the variable that first entered the regularization path and λ_{min} was chosen such that the first q variables that appeared in the regularization path, mathematically, λ_{min} was chosen such that $\left{\displaystyle {\cup}_{{\mathit{\lambda}}_{\text{min}}\le \mathit{\lambda}\le {\mathit{\lambda}}_{\text{max}}}{\widehat{\mathit{S}}}^{\mathit{\lambda}}}\right\le \mathit{q}$. The value of q was chosen a priori to yield a nontrivial bound (see discussion on the paper by Meinshausen and Bühlmann [9]), i.e. $\mathit{q}=\mathrm{O}\left(\sqrt{\left(2{\mathit{\pi}}_{\mathit{thr}}1\right)\mathit{p}}\right)$). The choice of q in stability selection does not have a strong impact on the FDR[9]. We used a conservative estimate of q (the square root of the number of predictors) in the discovery stage.
For the fixed regularization region, we applied the SCAD procedure to every subsample. ${\mathit{q}}_{\mathit{\Lambda}}=\mathit{E}\left{\displaystyle \underset{\mathit{\lambda}\in \mathit{\Lambda}}{\cup}{\widehat{\mathit{S}}}^{\mathit{\lambda}}\left(\mathit{I}\right)}\right$ was estimated via the Monte Carlo simulation averaging over B times independent subsampling. The threshold value π_{ thr } was solved while maintaining FDR ≤ α according to the expression (6) as
Unfortunately, given the nature of genetic data, the exact hypotheses required by the theorem of Meinshausen and Bülmann are unlikely to hold [9]. In particular, the exchangeability assumption of Theorem 1 about the indicator random variables $\left\{{1}_{\left\{\mathit{k}\in {\widehat{\mathit{S}}}^{\mathit{\lambda}}\right\}},\mathit{k}\in \mathit{N}\right\}$ is questionable due to the correlations among the markers induced by linkage disequilibrium. We worried that the false positives of stability selection might be grossly wrong in our genetic data. So we adopted the method described in Alexander and Lange [8] to make a rough check on the false discovery rate of stability selection. We randomly permuted the phenotype vector y for all participants, firstly. We then performed the stability selection procedure on the permutation sample and obtained the selection probability of the variable corresponding to the maximum test statistic in the association analysis, and finally compared the selection probability with the cutoff calculated from the theorem of Meinshausen and Bülmann.
Data simulation
_{S}SCAD selection procedure was compared with LASSO, SCAD, and _{S}LASSO under a variety of interaction models.
Genotype simulation
HAPGEN (v2.2.0) program [10] was used to simulate genotype information. The simulation parameters for SNP frequencies and variance structure were extracted from HapMap3 JPT + CHB that includes SNPs located within ±20kb of ABCC4 (ATPbinding cassette subfamily C member 4) at 13q31. The legend file for the SNP markers, and the fine scale recombination rate were downloaded from the HapMap website (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/downloads/index.html.en). After quality control, 327 common SNPs remained (with the exclusion criteria: missing data of SNPs > 5%, minor allele frequence < 5%, HardyWeinberg pvalue < 10^{4}). The linkage disequilibrium (LD) pattern is shown in Figure 1.
Phenotype simulations
Genetic interaction model was applied for case/control phenotypes simulations. During the phenotype simulation, we took m =327 (${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathit{m}}^{2}=53301$ twoway interactions) and randomly selected causal SNPs from different haplotype blocks. The blocks were computed through Haploview v4.2 by standard expectationmaximization algorithm [11], which partitioned the region into segments of strong linkage disequilibrium (LD). A total of 26 blocks were generated with a minimum size of 2 markers and a maximum size of 64 markers. All the causal SNPs and SNPSNP interactions were assumed to improve the risk (OR = 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, respectively); wherein we let y_{ i } denote the phenotype value of subject i, which is obtained according to the logistic regression model (1).
We conducted simulations to evaluate selection performance of the LASSO, SCAD, _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD procedures under the following scenarios:

(A).
The interactive SNPs have no main effects:
β_{ j } = 0 for all j, and ξ_{ jk } ≠ 0 for some randomly chosen j, k.

(B).
Only one SNP in the SNPSNP interaction pair has a main effect:
ξ_{ jk } ≠ 0 and β_{ j } ≠ 0 for some randomly chosen j, k.

(C).
Both interactive SNPs have main effects:
ξ_{ jk } ≠ 0, β_{ j } ≠ 0 and β_{ k } ≠ 0 for some randomly chosen j, k.
The odds ratio parameters are shown in Table 1. Since there are only a few etiological loci  only a few of the coefficients in the model are nonzero  the phenomenon is referred to as being sparse.
For every simulation scenario of phenotype in Table 1, the phenotype y_{ i } was generated based on the simulated SNPs by HAPGEN 2 using the abovementioned logistic regression model (1). We simulated the population with an equal number of cases and controls (n/2 = 10,000) with 200 replicate data sets, and then 1,000 cases and 1,000 controls were randomly sampled from the population to form one sample set. Next, we performed different variable selection methods for each sample set.
Simulated data analysis
R software (version 2.14.0, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing) was used to perform the simulation. The package “glmnet” and modified package “ncvreg” were used for LASSO and SCAD analysis, respectively. For stability selection, we chose B = 500 times independent subsamples with a size of 500 cases and 500 controls from each 10001000 casescontrols sample set.
Application
The study subjects were from an ongoing twocenter (Nanjing and Beijing, China) GWAS of lung cancer in China. At recruitment, written informed consent was obtained from each subject. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of each participating institution. The details of population and other related information were described previously [12]. A systematic quality control procedure was applied for both SNPs and individuals. SNPs were excluded if they did not map on autosomal chromosomes, with minor allele frequency < 0.05, with call rate < 95%, with p < 1 × 10^{5} for HardyWeinberg equilibrium in combined samples of two studies or p < 1 × 10^{4} in either the Nanjing or Beijing study samples. We removed samples with a call rate of < 95%, ambiguous gender, familial relationships, extreme heterozygosity rate, and outliers. Briefly, there were 1,473 cases and 1,962 controls in the Nanjing center, 858 cases and 1,115 controls in the Beijing center after quality control.
A multistage strategy is often used for detecting interactions on a genomewide scale. The method proposed in the current study could not be directly applied to genomewide scale SNPs data since it is too computationally intensive to exhaustively search for all SNP pairs. A filtering method could be helpful, as explained below using the achPathway pathway (a role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the regulation of apoptosis). This pathway is one of the top pathways associated with lung cancer risk in the Han Chinese population. Several studies have shown that the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors can induce cell proliferation as well as angiogenesis [13]. The achPathway pathway includes the genes PIK3R1, PTK2B, PTK2, AKT1, PIK3CG, FASLG, MUSK, CHRNG, RAPSN, BAD, FOXO3, TERT, CHRNB1, PIK3CA, SRC and YWHAH. All SNPs are mapped into genes within 20 kb downstream or upstream. All together, there are 344 common SNPs. We conducted an exhaustive search (${\mathit{C}}_{344}^{2}=58996$) of twoway interaction in the pathway. Covariates including age, gender, packyear of smoking, and the first two principal components, which have been proposed to sufficiently adjust for population stratification derived from EIGENSTRAT 3.0 [14], were adjusted in the stability selection procedure [12].
To increase confidence in the selection of significant interactions from tens of thousands of SNP pairs, interactions findings often need to be replicated in independent studies. We adopted a twostage strategy in the current study. In the initial discovery stage, we used _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD to select significant SNPSNP interactions using the data from the Nanjing center. In the replication stage, the findings in the initial step were validated using the data from the Beijing center with _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD. A slight variation was made to calibrate the significant threshold for the replication phase (i.e., we set the initial fixed number of variables in Beijing study as the number of selected variables in the discovery stage).
The SNP pairs were selected using the following criteria: (i) the interaction had the selection probability π_{ l } ≥ π_{thr1} in the Nanjing study, while in the Beijing study the selection probability was π_{ l } ≥ π_{thr2} (π_{thr1} and π_{thr2} are the significant thresholds of the Nanjing and Beijing studies, corresponding to the control of the FDR under 0.1); (ii) the Nanjing and Beijing centers both demonstrated identical direction of odds ratios for the two SNPs, with their interaction derived from penalized logistic regression.
Results
Result of simulation
We evaluated the performance of different variable selection procedures using four established statistical indexes, including the true positive rate (TPR):
the Mathhews correlation coefficient (MCC) [15]:
the estimated area under the ROC curves (AUC) [16]:
and the estimated false discovery rate (FDR,[17]):
where TP and TN stand for true positives and true negatives, FP and FN stand for false positives and false negatives, respectively. ${\widehat{\mathit{p}}}_{\mathit{u}}$ is the selection probability of the uth predictor and the first t_{0} variables are assumed to be true signals. The index TPR is known as sensitivity, whereas MCC is generally regarded as a balanced measure for both sensitivity and specificity, AUC summarizes overall prediction performance, and FDR is a criterion to measure and control the number of false positives for the classskewed highthroughput data [18]. The indexes TPR, MCC and AUC are used to measure the power of detecting interactions, while FDR is primarily used to assess false positives of detection.
The simulation results of different procedures for the three kinds of scenarios are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4. All indexes are presented as average and standard error using 200 replications. The simulation results based on the Tables 2, 3 and 4 are described from the following two perspectives.
(I). _{S}LASSO/_{S}SCAD has lower false discovery rate than LASSO/SCAD while possessing similar AUC
It appears that _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD have lower $\stackrel{\u2322}{\mathit{FDR}}$ for identifying interactions in comparison to LASSO or SCAD. Contrary to LASSO and SCAD which generated unacceptably high $\stackrel{\u2322}{\mathit{FDR}}$ in all scenarios, both _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD controlled $\stackrel{\u2322}{\mathit{FDR}}$ at an acceptable level. In regards to predictive AUC, there was no difference in stability selection procedures that being its inclusion or exclusion. In other words, _{S}LASSO or _{S}SCAD achieved a higher specificity than other procedures despite the similar diagnostic accuracy of AUC.
(II). _{S}SCAD has more robust power against _{S}LASSO among different interaction models
Given an acceptable $\stackrel{\u2322}{\mathit{FDR}}$ level, we compared _{S}SCAD with the _{S}LASSO procedure in the detection of SNPSNP interactions. _{S}LASSO lost its ability to rapidly detect interactions as the reduction of the main effects from the scenarios C1/C2/C3 to scenarios B1/B2/B3 and A1/A2/A3. _{S}SCAD, on the other hand, possessed robust detecting power under all scenarios. For the scenario A1/A2/A3, in which the model only included the SNPSNP interaction without any main effects of SNPs, _{S}SCAD was more powerful than _{S}LASSO. An exemplification of this can be seen in scenario A1, in which the criteria of measuring the power of variable selection procedures echoed the trend: therein the TPR of _{S}SCAD was 93.3%, while the one of _{S}LASSO was only roughly 75.0%. Likewise, MCC and AUC were also both higher with _{S}SCAD than with _{S}LASSO.
The underlying interactions were better detected with _{S}LASSO in the scenario C1 where the corresponding main effects were not too small (Table 2). _{S}LASSO possessed slightly higher TPR, MCC and AUC than _{S}SCAD in the scenario C1. _{S}SCAD was more powerful than _{S}LASSO in the scenario C2/C3 where the corresponding main effects ranged from small to moderate (Tables 3 and 4).
Generally speaking, the SCAD penalty has an edge over LASSO in selection features, namely those where the selective features are more consistent with their actual effects. The LASSO penalty may introduce more false interactions than the SCAD in the sparse highdimensional models. Thus, _{S}LASSO loses more true positives than _{S}SCAD when controlling FDR estimation of stability selection at the desired level.
Overall, since the underlying interaction model is generally unknown, and a wide range of interaction models without marginal effects do exist [19], _{S}SCAD is a valuable tool for discovering interactions without main effects and complement _{S}LASSO in GWAS.
Result of application
Two SNPSNP interactions were significant in both the discovery and replication phases by _{S}LASSO (Table 5), and four SNPSNP interactions were significant in both phases of _{S}SCAD selection. _{S}SCAD contained all significant interactions identified by _{S}LASSO. When using _{S}SCAD, the two pairs (rs7839119rs4524871 and rs2736100rs40318) were shown to have significant interactions in both the discovery and replication populations. In contrast, neither of two pairs was validated as significant in the replication phase with _{S}LASSO.
For the _{S}LASSO procedure, there were ten significant (π_{ l } ≥ π_{thr1}, FDR < 0.1) twoway SNPSNP interactions in the Nanjing discovery study (Table 6). Among these ten SNP pairs, two were selected (π_{ l } ≥ π_{thr2}, FDR < 0.1) in the replication phase (Table 7). Both SNPSNP interactions (rs7839119rs12544802 and rs3781626rs6018348) were verified in the replication phase. In an overall analysis that included discovery and replication datasets (5,408 subjects; 2,331 cases and 3,077 controls), the empirical selection probabilities of rs7839119rs12544802 and rs3781626rs6018348 interactions were 0.668 and 0.617, respectively; thus, indicating little statistical significance (π_{ l } ≥ π_{ thr }, FDR < 0.1).
Under the _{S}SCAD procedure, all four significant SNPSNP interactions (rs7839119rs12544802, rs3781626rs6018348, rs7839119rs4524871 and rs2736100rs40318) were successfully replicated (Tables 5, 8, and 9). The empirical selection probabilities of rs7839119rs12544802, rs3781626rs6018348, rs7839119rs4524871 and rs2736100rs40318 interactions in the overall analysis, which included all 5,408 subjects, were 0.801, 0.824, 0.980 and 0.977, respectively. In turn, these results indicate statistical significance (π_{ l } ≥ π_{ thr }, FDR < 0.1).
We also included the result of one permuted data set from the total 5,408 subjects combined. The selection probabilities of the _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD were 0.402 and 0.306, respectively. This corresponds to the maximum value of the test statistic for the permutation set. The cutoffs obtained from above inequality (6) for _{S}LASSO and _{S}SCAD with the significance (FDR < 0.1) were 0.593 and 0.560, respectively; thus, suggesting that the FDR calculated from the Meinshausen and Bülmann theorem is conservative. There appears to be little danger of selecting grossly inaccurate FDR when applying the Meinshausen and Bülmann theory.
Discussion
Identifying interactions among multiple SNPs is both statistically and computationally challenging in largescale association studies. The challenges include highdimensional problems, computational capability, multiple testing problems, and genetic heterogeneity [20]. Many stochastic and heuristic detecting epistasis methods [21] could be used to analyze GWAS dataset. Wang et al. used AntEpiSeeker, a twostage ant colony optimization algorithm (ACO), to identify epistasis [22]. Wan et al. proposed SNPRuler [23] based on both predictive rule inference, and twostage design. Boolean operationbased screening and testing (BOOST) [24] involves only Boolean values, and allows the use of fast logic operations to obtain contingency tables. TEAM [25] exploits properties of test statistics to mitigate multiple testing problems. To date, there appears to be no one method free from model sensitivity.
In addition to nonparametric and modelfree methods, many LASSObased penalized parametric methods provide the estimation of parameter as the dimensionality increases, even if the number of variables is greater than the sample size. The coefficients of those none diseaseassociated SNPs will be zero in the penalized multivariate regression model. Thus, detecting interactions is equivalent with the variable selection problem under the framework of regression analysis. A broad range of simulations has demonstrated that the penalized regression method is a useful tool for detecting genegene interactions. However, the regularization choice in penalized regression is usually made by crossvalidation that maximizes predictive accuracy in finite samples; although it does not necessarily induce the correct sparseness pattern for variable selection [26]. In our simulations, crossvalidation often leads to the inclusion of too many noise variables, and induces instability of variable selection for the ordinary penalized regression method, such as LASSO or SCAD. A major hurdle for studying interactions in GWAS is the lack of efficient algorithms that can map different forms of interactions while keeping FDR under control [27]. _{S}LASSO introduces stability selection into traditional LASSO. The stability selection procedure combines selection algorithms for high dimensional problems by subsampling. _{S}LASSO dramatically reduces the number of false discovery rate, and could accurately identify crucial regions of GWAS; however, it is overly conservative, and may miss some important regions.
_{S}SCAD procedure increases the power of detecting the interactions while controlling FDR. It attempts to provide more true interactions, but less noise terms than _{S}LASSO. The above advantage could be attributed to the fact that running the LASSOpenalized procedure within stability selection results in more false positives than SCAD for each random subsample. Thus, the interactions causing noise as well as true interactions in the region both satisfy the threshold condition π_{ thr } for selection. To control the number of falsely selected variables, the threshold must be very stringent. As a result, the _{S}LASSO selection suffers a loss of power.
We analyzed a previously reported lung cancer dataset in Han Chinese, and confirmed significant interactions in the achPathway pathway, which supported the appropriate use of the proposed method. The observation of interactions between two closely located SNP pairs supports the hypothesis that some genetic variation in complex traits may hide in interactions between linked SNPs [28].
Application of the proposed procedure to GWAS data may ensure that the power of detection is reduced when overstringent threshold π_{ thr } conditions exist for the much increased ratio of SNPs to samples. A good alternative to derive genomewide significant threshold is permutation. Unfortunately, genomewide permutation in real GWAS of interactions is computationally prohibitive for the _{S}SCAD selection. Partial search strategies based on biological knowledge [29] or the filtering of unimportant SNPs prior to analysis [30] could be adopted to reduce excessive computing burdens in early stage of genomewide scale. These strategies are also necessary for the proposed method.
Under our current approach, highdimensional data were primarily managed with sparse models. High correlations (individual SNPs that have a variance inflation factor (VIF) > 2 with other markers) were excluded. The chip data were pruned, and then analyzed with regression model method using a sparse constraint. Many common diseases may be associated with many SNPs with small to moderate effects. In this situation, we are considering group penalized methods in another paper.
Conclusions
We developed a variable selection procedure (referred to as _{S}SCAD selection). This procedure could control the FDR while maintaining the power to detect SNPSNP interactions in association studies. In the pure interaction model, this procedure seems to overcome the conservativeness of _{S}LASSO. The end result is that _{S}SCAD, as a new technique in detecting interactions, can benefit the selection of _{S}LASSO.
References
 1.
Moore JH, Asselbergs FW, Williams SM: Bioinformatics challenges for genomewide association studies. Bioinformatics. 2010, 26: 445455. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp713.
 2.
Chen L, Yu G, Langefeld CD, Miller DJ, Guy RT, Raghuram J, Yuan X, Herrington DM, Wang Y: Comparative analysis of methods for detecting interacting loci. BMC Genomics. 2011, 12: 34410.1186/1471216412344.
 3.
Ritchie M, Hahn L, Roodi N, Bailey L, Dupont W, Parl F, Moore J: Multifactordimensionality reduction reveals high order interactions among estrogenmetabolism genes in sporadic breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2001, 69: 138147. 10.1086/321276.
 4.
Yang C, Wan X, Yang Q, Xue H, Yu WC: Identifying main effects and epistatic interactions from largescale snp data via adaptive group lasso. BMC Bioinforma. 2010, 11: SupplS18
 5.
Tibshirani R: Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Statist Soc B. 1996, 58: 267288.
 6.
Fan J, Li R: Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001, 96: 13481360. 10.1198/016214501753382273.
 7.
Winham S, Wang C, MotsingerReif AA: A comparison of multifactor dimensionality reduction and L1penalized regression to identify genegene interactions in genetic association studies. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2011, 10 (1): 123.
 8.
Alexander D, Lange K: Stability selection for genomewide association. Genet Epidemiol. 2011, 35: 722728. 10.1002/gepi.20623.
 9.
Meinshausen N, Bülmann P: Stability selection. J Roy Statist Soc Ser B. 2010, 72: 417473. 10.1111/j.14679868.2010.00740.x.
 10.
Su Z, Marchini J, Donnelly P: Hapgen2: simulation of multiple disease snps. Bioinformatics. 2011, 27: 23042305. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr341.
 11.
Barrett JC, Fry B, Maller J, Daly MJ: Haploview: analysis and visualization of LD and haplotype maps. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21 (2): 263265. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth457.
 12.
Hu Z, Wu C, Shi Y, Guo H, Zhao X, Yin Z, Yang L, Dai J, Hu L, Tan W, Li Z, Deng Q, Wang J, Wu W, Jin G, Jiang Y, Yu D, Zhou G, Chen H, Guan P, Chen Y, Shu Y, Xu L, Liu X, Liu L, Xu P, Han B, Bai C, Zhao Y, Zhang H, et al: A genomewide association study identifies two new lung cancer susceptibility loci at 13q12.12 and 22q12.2 in han chinese. Nat Genet. 2011, 43: 792796. 10.1038/ng.875.
 13.
Bush WS, Moore JH: Chapter 11: Genomewide association studies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012, 8 (12): e100282210.1371/journal.pcbi.1002822.
 14.
Price AL: Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genomewide association studies. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 904909. 10.1038/ng1847.
 15.
Baldi P, Brunak S, Chauvin Y, Andersen CAF, Nielsen H: Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification:an overview. Bioinformatics. 2000, 16 (5): 412424. 10.1093/bioinformatics/16.5.412.
 16.
Pepe MS: The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. 2003, New York: Oxford University Press
 17.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y: Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995, 57 (1): 289300.
 18.
Yu T: ROCS: Receiver Operating Characteristic Surface for classskewed highthroughput data. Plos One. 2012, 7 (7): e4059810.1371/journal.pone.0040598.
 19.
Culverhouse R, Suarez B, Lin J, Reich T: A perspective on epistasis: limits of models displaying no main effect. Am J Hum Genet. 2002, 70: 461471. 10.1086/338759.
 20.
Cordell H: Detecting genegene interactions that underlie human diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2009, 10 (6): 392404. 10.1038/nrg2579.
 21.
Shang J, Zhang J, Sun Y, Liu D, Ye D, Yin Y: Performance analysis of novel methods for detecting epistasis. BMC Bioinforma. 2011, 12 (1): 47510.1186/1471210512475.
 22.
Wang Y, Liu X, Robbins K, Rekaya R: AntEpiSeeker: detecting epistatic interactions for casecontrol studies using a twostage ant colony optimization algorithm. BMC Res Notes. 2010, 3: 11710.1186/175605003117.
 23.
Wan X, Yang C, Yang Q, Xue H, Tang N, Yu W: Predictive rule inference for epistatic interaction detection in genomewide association studies. Bioinformatics. 2010, 26 (1): 3037. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp622.
 24.
Wan X, Yang C, Yang Q, Xue H, Fan X, Tang N, Yu W: BOOST: A fast approach to detecting genegene interactions in genomewide casecontrol studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2010, 87 (3): 325340. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.07.021.
 25.
Zhang X, Huang S, Zou F, Wang W: TEAM: efficient twolocus epistasis tests in human genomewide association study. Bioinformatics. 2010, 26 (12): i217i227. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq186.
 26.
Leng C, Lin Y, Wahba G: A note on the lasso and related procedures in model selection. Stat Sinica. 2006, 16: 12731284.
 27.
Van Steen K: Travelling the world of gene–gene interactions. Brief Bioinform. 2012, 13 (1): 119. 10.1093/bib/bbr012.
 28.
Haig D: Does heritability hide in epistasis between linked SNPs?. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011, 19: 123
 29.
Mea E: Using biological networks to search for interacting loci in genomewide association studies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009, 17: 12311240. 10.1038/ejhg.2009.15.
 30.
Tea KT: EPIBLASTERfast exhaustive twolocus epistasis detection strategy using graphical processing units. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011, 19: 465471. 10.1038/ejhg.2010.196.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all of the study participants and research staff for their contributions and commitment to this study. This work was founded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 81072389 to FC, 30901232 to YZ), key Grant of Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (11KJA330001 and 10KJA33034), the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), and the Research and the Innovation Project for College Graduates of Jiangsu Province (CXZZ12_0592). We also appreciate the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
JG performed the simulations, participated in the data analysis, and prepared for the manuscript. YZ participated in the design of simulations, and helped to draft the manuscript. YW helped to perform the simulations. RZ, YQ and PZ participated in the data analysis. CW, TW,DY,WT, ZH, DL and HS acquired the data. FC conceptualized the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Gou, J., Zhao, Y., Wei, Y. et al. Stability SCAD: a powerful approach to detect interactions in largescale genomic study. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/147121051562
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Genomewide association study (GWAS)
 Interaction
 Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)
 Penalized logistic regression
 Smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD)
 Stability selection