Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
PLoS One. 2007 Sep 5;2(9):e841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000841.
Meta-analysis is the systematic and quantitative synthesis of effect sizes and the exploration of their diversity across different studies. Meta-analyses are increasingly applied to synthesize data from genome-wide association (GWA) studies and from other teams that try to replicate the genetic variants that emerge from such investigations. Between-study heterogeneity is important to document and may point to interesting leads.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To exemplify these issues, we used data from three GWA studies on type 2 diabetes and their replication efforts where meta-analyses of all data using fixed effects methods (not incorporating between-study heterogeneity) have already been published. We considered 11 polymorphisms that at least one of the three teams has suggested as susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. The I2 inconsistency metric (measuring the amount of heterogeneity not due to chance) was different from 0 (no detectable heterogeneity) for 6 of the 11 genetic variants; inconsistency was moderate to very large (I2 = 32-77%) for 5 of them. For these 5 polymorphisms, random effects calculations incorporating between-study heterogeneity revealed more conservative p-values for the summary effects compared with the fixed effects calculations. These 5 associations were perused in detail to highlight potential explanations for between-study heterogeneity. These include identification of a marker for a correlated phenotype (e.g. FTO rs8050136 being associated with type 2 diabetes through its effect on obesity); differential linkage disequilibrium across studies of the identified genetic markers with the respective culprit polymorphisms (e.g., possibly the case for CDKAL1 polymorphisms or for rs9300039 and markers in linkage disequilibrium, as shown by additional studies); and potential bias. Results were largely similar, when we treated the discovery and replication data from each GWA investigation as separate studies.
Between-study heterogeneity is useful to document in the synthesis of data from GWA investigations and can offer valuable insights for further clarification of gene-disease associations.
荟萃分析是对效应大小进行系统和定量的综合,并探索它们在不同研究中的多样性。荟萃分析越来越多地应用于综合来自全基因组关联(GWA)研究的数据,以及其他试图复制此类研究中出现的遗传变异的团队的数据。研究间异质性是需要记录的重要内容,并且可能指向有趣的线索。
方法/主要发现:为了说明这些问题,我们使用了三项 2 型糖尿病 GWA 研究及其复制工作的数据,这些研究已经发表了使用固定效应方法(不包含研究间异质性)对所有数据进行荟萃分析的结果。我们考虑了三个团队中至少有一个团队提出的 11 个多态性,作为 2 型糖尿病易感性位点。11 个遗传变异中有 6 个的 I2 不一致性度量(衡量由于机会而不是异质性的量)不为 0(无可检测的异质性);其中 5 个为中度至非常大(I2=32-77%)。对于这 5 个多态性,包含研究间异质性的随机效应计算得出的汇总效应的 p 值比固定效应计算得出的更保守。对这 5 个关联进行了详细研究,以突出研究间异质性的潜在解释。这些解释包括识别相关表型的标记(例如,FTO rs8050136 通过其对肥胖的影响与 2 型糖尿病相关);在识别的遗传标记与各自的致病多态性之间的研究中存在不同的连锁不平衡(例如,可能是 CDKAL1 多态性或 rs9300039 和连锁不平衡中的标记的情况,如其他研究所示);以及潜在的偏差。当我们将每个 GWA 研究的发现和复制数据视为单独的研究时,结果基本相似。
在综合 GWA 研究的数据时,记录研究间异质性是有用的,并且可以为进一步澄清基因-疾病关联提供有价值的见解。