# Use of Information Measures and Their Approximations to Detect Predictive Gene-Gene Interaction

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Measures of Interaction

#### 2.1. Interaction Information Measure

**Proposition**

**1.**

**Proposition**

**2.**

#### 2.2. Other Nonparametric Measures of Interaction

**Proposition**

**3.**

**Proposition**

**4.**

**Proposition**

**5.**

**Proposition**

**6.**

#### 2.3. Estimation of the Interaction Measures

## 3. Modeling Gene-Gene Interactions

#### 3.1. Logistic Modeling of Gene-Gene Interactions

**Proposition**

**7.**

#### 3.2. ANOVA Model for Binary Outcome

#### 3.3. Behavior of Interaction Indices for Logistic Models

#### 3.4. Behavior of Interaction Indices When ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ Are Independent

#### 3.5. Behavior of Interaction Indices When ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ Are Dependent

## 4. Tests for Predictive Interaction

- ${t}_{0},{t}_{1}$, the number of observations in controls ($Y=0$) and cases ($Y=1$), set equal in our experiments and $n={t}_{0}+{t}_{1}$, the total number of observations. Values of $n=500$ and $n=1000$ were considered.
- MAF, the minor allele frequency for ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$. We set $MAF=0.25$ for both loci.
- copula, the function that determines the cumulative distribution of $\left(\right)$ based on its marginal distributions.
- $p(i,j):=\mathbb{P}\left(\right)open="("\; close=")">Y=1|{x}_{i},{x}_{j}$, the prevalence mapping, which in our experiments was either additive logistic or logistic with nonzero interaction.

#### 4.1. Behavior of Interaction Tests When ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ Are Independent

#### 4.1.1. Type I Errors for Models $M0$–$M2$

#### 4.1.2. Power for Additive Logistic Models

#### 4.1.3. Power for the Logistic Model with Interactions

#### 4.2. Behavior of the Interaction Tests When ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ Are Dependent

#### 4.2.1. Type I Errors for Model $M0$

#### 4.2.2. Power for Additive Logistic Models When ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ Are Dependent

#### 4.2.3. The Powers for Logistic Models with Interaction When ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ Are Dependent

#### 4.3. Real Data Example

## 5. Discussion

## Acknowledgments

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

#### Appendix A.1. Distribution of X_{1},X_{2}

**Table A1.**Mass function $p\left(\right)open="("\; close=")">{x}_{i},{x}_{j}$ of $\left(\right)$ for $MAF=0.25.$ The upper panel corresponds to independent ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ and the lower to the Frank copula with $\theta =-1$.

$\mathit{i}\backslash \mathit{j}$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | ∑ |
---|---|---|---|---|

Independent ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ | ||||

1 | $0.0039$ | $0.0235$ | $0.0351$ | $0.0625$ |

2 | $0.0234$ | $0.1406$ | $0.2110$ | $0.3750$ |

3 | $0.0352$ | $0.2109$ | $0.3164$ | $0.5625$ |

∑ | $0.0625$ | $0.3750$ | $0.5625$ | 1 |

Frank Copula with $\theta =-1$ | ||||

1 | $0.0024$ | $0.0180$ | $0.0421$ | $0.0625$ |

2 | $0.0180$ | $0.1232$ | $0.2339$ | $0.3750$ |

3 | $0.0421$ | $0.2339$ | $0.2865$ | $0.5625$ |

∑ | $0.0625$ | $0.3750$ | $0.5625$ | 1 |

#### Appendix A.2. Prevalence Mapping with the Logistic Regression Model

## References

- Cordell, H.J. Epistasis: What it means, what it doesn’t mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. Hum. Mol. Genet.
**2002**, 11, 2463–2468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ritchie, M.; Hahn, L.; Roodi, N.; Bailey, L.; Dupont, W.; Parl, F.; Moore, J. Multifactor dimensionality reduction reveals high-order interactions in genome-wide association studies in sporadic breast cancer. Am. J. Hum. Genet.
**2001**, 69, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Zhang, J.; Liu, R. Bayesian inference of epistatic interactions in case-control studies. Nat. Genet.
**2007**, 39, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Yang, C.; He, Z.; Wan, X.; Yang, Q.; Xue, H.; Yu, W. SNP Harvester: A filtering-based approach for detecting epistatic interactions in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics
**2009**, 25, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Liu, Y.; Xu, H.; Chen, S. Genome-wide interaction based association analysis identified multiple new susceptibility loci for common diseases. PLoS Genet.
**2011**, 7, e1001338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Goudey, B.; Rawlinson, D.; Wang, Q.; Shi, F.; Ferra, H.; Campbell, R.M.; Stern, L.; Inouye, M.T.; Ong, C.S.; Kowalczyk, A. GWIS—Model-free, fast and exhaustive search for epistatic interactions in case-control GWAS. BMC Genom.
**2013**, 14 (Suppl. 3), S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Chanda, P.; Sucheston, L.; Zhang, A.; Brazeau, D.; Freudenheim, J.; Ambrosone, C.; Ramanathan, M. AMBIENCE: A novel approach and efficient algorithm for identifying informative genetic and environmental associations with complex phenotypes. Genetics
**2008**, 180, 1191–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wan, X.; Yang, C.; Yang, Q.; Xue, T.; Fan, X.; Tang, N.; Yu, W. BOOST: A fast approach to detecting gene-gene interactions in genome-wide case-control studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet.
**2010**, 87, 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wei, W.H.; Hermani, G.; Haley, C. Detecting epistasis in human complex traits. Nat. Rev. Genet.
**2014**, 15, 722–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Moore, J.; Williams, S. Epistasis. Methods and Protocols; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Duggal, P.; Gillanders, E.; Holmes, T.; Bailey-Wilson, J. Establishing an adjusted p-value threshold to control the family-wide type 1 error in genome wide association studies. BMC Genom.
**2008**, 9, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Culverhouse, R.; Suarez, B.K.; Lin, J.; Reich, T. A perspective on epistasis: Limits of models displaying no main effect. Am. J. Hum. Genet.
**2002**, 70, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Lüdtke, N.; Panzeri, S.; Brown, M.; Broomhead, D.S.; Knowles, J.; Montemurro, M.A.; Kell, D.B. Information-theoretic sensitivity analysis: A general method for credit assignment in complex networks. J. R. Soc. Interface
**2008**, 5, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Evans, D.; Marchini, J.; Morris, A.; Cardon, L. Two-stage two-locus models in genome-wide asssociation. PLoS Genet.
**2006**, 2, 1424–1432. [Google Scholar] - McGill, W. Multivariate information transmission. Psychometrika
**1954**, 19, 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fano, F. Transmission of Information: Statistical Theory of Communication; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Cover, T.; Thomas, J. Elements of Information Theory; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Han, T.S. Multiple mutual informations and multiple interactions in frequency data. Inf. Control
**1980**, 46, 26–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kang, G.; Yue, W.; Zhang, J.; Cui, Y.; Zuo, Y.; Zhang, D. An entropy-based approach for testing genetic epistasis underlying complex diseases. J. Theor. Biol.
**2008**, 250, 362–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Zhao, J.; Jin, L.; Xiong, M. Test for interaction between two unlinked loci. Am. J. Hum. Genet.
**2006**, 79, 831–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Darroch, J. Interactions in multi-factor contingency tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B
**1962**, 24, 251–263. [Google Scholar] - Sucheston, L.; Chanda, P.; Zhang, A.; Tritchler, D.; Ramanathan, M. Comparison of information-theoretic to statistical methods for gene-gene interactions in the presence of genetic heterogeneity. BMC Genom.
**2010**, 11, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Darroch, J. Multiplicative and additive interaction in contingency tables. Biometrika
**1974**, 9, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, W.; Reich, J. A complete enumeration and classification of two-locus disease models. Hum. Hered.
**2000**, 17, 334–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Culverhouse, R. The use of the restricted partition method with case-control data. Hum. Hered.
**2007**, 63, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Rencher, A.C.; Schaalje, G.B. Linear Models in Statistics; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, A.; Fan, J.; Karakiri, C.; Bibikova, M.; Garcia, E.; Zhou, L.; Barker, D.; Serre, D.; Feldmann, G.; Hruban, R.; et al. Allele-specific expression in the germline of patients with familial pancreatic cancer: An unbiased approach to cancer gene discovery. Cancer Biol. Ther.
**2008**, 7, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - SNPsyn. Available online: http://snpsyn.biolab.si (accessed on 4 January 2017).
- Nelson, R.B. An Introduction to Copulas; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Theoretic values of interaction measures for the additive logistic model and independent SNPs.

**Figure 2.**Theoretic values of the interaction measures for the logistic model with the interaction and independent SNPs.

**Figure 3.**Theoretic values of the interaction measures for the additive logistic model and dependent SNPs.

**Figure 4.**Theoretic values of the interaction measures for the logistic model with the interaction and dependent SNPs.

**Figure 5.**Actual Type I error rates against the nominal error α rate when ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ are independent for models $M{0}_{1},M{1}_{1}$ and $M{2}_{1}.$

**Figure 6.**Actual Type I error rates against nominal error rate α when ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ are dependent for model $M{0}_{1}.$

**Figure 7.**Powers for models $M{3}_{\lambda}$ and $M{4}_{\lambda}$ against λ when ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ are independent.

**Figure 8.**Powers for models $M{3}_{\lambda}$ and $M{4}_{\lambda}$ against λ when ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ are dependent.

**Figure 9.**The power for models $M0\left(\gamma \right),M3\left(\gamma \right)$ and $M4\left(\gamma \right)$ against γ when ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ are dependent.

**Figure 10.**Powers for models $M0\left(\gamma \right),M3\left(\gamma \right)$ and $M4\left(\gamma \right)$ against γ when ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ are independent.

**Figure 11.**Probability mass function for the pair (rs1131854,rs7374) (

**a**) and for corresponding conditional mass functions given $Y=1$ (

**b**) and $Y=0$ (

**c**).

**Table 1.**Coefficients for additive logistic models with parameter λ (cf. (39)). In each model, intercept μ was chosen, such that prevalence $P(Y=1)$ is equal to approximately $0.1$.

Model\Coefficients | ${\mathit{\alpha}}_{1}$ | ${\mathit{\alpha}}_{2}$ | ${\mathit{\alpha}}_{3}$ | ${\mathit{\beta}}_{1}$ | ${\mathit{\beta}}_{2}$ | ${\mathit{\beta}}_{3}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

$M{0}_{\lambda}$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

$M{1}_{\lambda}$ | λ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

$M{2}_{\lambda}$ | λ | λ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

$M{3}_{\lambda}$ | λ | 0 | 0 | λ | 0 | 0 |

$M{4}_{\lambda}$ | λ | λ | 0 | λ | λ | 0 |

**Table 2.**Values of the ${\gamma}_{ij}$ coefficients from Model (40) for the same constant value of $\gamma .$

$\mathit{i}\backslash \mathit{j}$ | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|---|---|---|

1 | γ | γ | 0 |

2 | γ | γ | 0 |

3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Mielniczuk, J.; Rdzanowski, M.
Use of Information Measures and Their Approximations to Detect Predictive Gene-Gene Interaction. *Entropy* **2017**, *19*, 23.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e19010023

**AMA Style**

Mielniczuk J, Rdzanowski M.
Use of Information Measures and Their Approximations to Detect Predictive Gene-Gene Interaction. *Entropy*. 2017; 19(1):23.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e19010023

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Mielniczuk, Jan, and Marcin Rdzanowski.
2017. "Use of Information Measures and Their Approximations to Detect Predictive Gene-Gene Interaction" *Entropy* 19, no. 1: 23.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e19010023