Methods for analyzing microbiome data generally fall into one of two groups: tests of the global hypothesis of any microbiome effect, which do not provide any information on the contribution of individual operational taxonomic units (OTUs); and tests for individual OTUs, which do not typically provide a global test of microbiome effect. Without a unified approach, the findings of a global test may be hard to resolve with the findings at the individual OTU level. Further, many tests of individual OTU effects do not preserve the false discovery rate (FDR). We introduce the linear decomposition model (LDM), that provides a single analysis path that includes global tests of any effect of the microbiome, tests of the effects of individual OTUs while accounting for multiple testing by controlling the FDR, and a connection to distance-based ordination. The LDM accommodates both continuous and discrete variables (e.g. clinical outcomes, environmental factors) as well as interaction terms to be tested either singly or in combination, allows for adjustment of confounding covariates, and uses permutation-based P-values that can control for sample correlation. The LDM can also be applied to transformed data, and an ‘omnibus’ test can easily combine results from analyses conducted on different transformation scales. We also provide a new implementation of PERMANOVA based on our approach. For global testing, our simulations indicate the LDM provided correct type I error and can have comparable power to existing distance-based methods. For testing individual OTUs, our simulations indicate the LDM controlled the FDR well. In contrast, DESeq2 often had inflated FDR; MetagenomeSeq generally had the lowest sensitivity. The flexibility of the LDM for a variety of microbiome studies is illustrated by the analysis of data from two microbiome studies. We also show that our implementation of PERMANOVA can outperform existing implementations. The R package LDM is available on GitHub at https://github.com/yijuanhu/LDM in formats appropriate for Macintosh or Windows. yijuan.hu@emory.edu Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Compositional analysis is based on the premise that a relatively small proportion of taxa are differentially abundant, while the ratios of the relative abundances of the remaining taxa remain unchanged. Most existing methods use log-transformed data, but log-transformation of data with pervasive zero counts is problematic, and these methods cannot always control the false discovery rate (FDR). Further, high-throughput microbiome data such as 16S amplicon or metagenomic sequencing are subject to experimental biases that are introduced in every step of the experimental workflow. McLaren et al. [ eLife 8, e46923 (2019)] have recently proposed a model for how these biases affect relative abundance data. Motivated by this model, we show that the odds ratios in a logistic regression comparing counts in two taxa are invariant to experimental biases. With this motivation, we propose logistic compositional analysis (LOCOM), a robust logistic regression approach to compositional analysis, that does not require pseudocounts. Inference is based on permutation to account for overdispersion and small sample sizes. Traits can be either binary or continuous, and adjustment for confounders is supported. Our simulations indicate that LOCOM always preserved FDR and had much improved sensitivity over existing methods. In contrast, analysis of composition of microbiomes (ANCOM) and ANCOM with bias correction (ANCOM-BC)/ANOVA-Like Differential Expression tool (ALDEx2) had inflated FDR when the effect sizes were small and large, respectively. Only LOCOM was robust to experimental biases in every situation. The flexibility of our method for a variety of microbiome studies is illustrated by the analysis of data from two microbiome studies. Our R package LOCOM is publicly available.

Background: The genomic structure that contributes to the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) can be evaluated as a risk score of multiple variants. However, sex differences have not been fully examined in applications of genetic risk score (GRS) of CAD. Methods: Using data from the UK Biobank, we constructed a CAD-GRS based on all known loci, 3 mediating trait-based (blood pressure, lipids, and body mass index) subscores, and a genome-wide polygenic risk score based on 1.1 million variants. The differences in genetic associations with prevalent and incident CAD between men and women were investigated among 317 509 unrelated individuals of the European ancestry. We also assessed interactions with sex for 161 individual loci included in the comprehensive GRS. Results: For both prevalent and incident CAD, the associations of comprehensive and genome-wide GRSs were stronger among men than women. Using a score of 161 loci, we observed a 2.4× higher risk for incident CAD comparing men with high genetic risk to men with low genetic risk but an 80% greater risk comparing women with high genetic risk to women with low genetic risk (interaction P =0.002). Of the 3 subscores, the blood pressure–associated subscore exhibited sex differences (interaction P =0.0004 per SD increase in subscore). Analysis of individual variants identified a novel gene-sex interaction at locus 21q22.11 . Conclusions: Sexual differences in genetic predisposition should be considered in future studies of CAD, and GRSs should not be assumed to perform equally well in men and women.

Next-generation sequencing of DNA provides an unprecedented opportunity to discover rare genetic variants associated with complex diseases and traits. However, the common practice of first calling underlying genotypes and then treating the called values as known is prone to false positive findings, especially when genotyping errors are systematically different between cases and controls. This happens whenever cases and controls are sequenced at different depths, on different platforms, or in different batches. In this article, we provide a likelihood-based approach to testing rare variant associations that directly models sequencing reads without calling genotypes. We consider the (weighted) burden test statistic, which is the (weighted) sum of the score statistic for assessing effects of individual variants on the trait of interest. Because variant locations are unknown, we develop a simple, computationally efficient screening algorithm to estimate the loci that are variants. Because our burden statistic may not have mean zero after screening, we develop a novel bootstrap procedure for assessing the significance of the burden statistic. We demonstrate through extensive simulation studies that the proposed tests are robust to a wide range of differential sequencing qualities between cases and controls, and are at least as powerful as the standard genotype calling approach when the latter controls type I error. An application to the UK10K data reveals novel rare variants in gene BTBD18 associated with childhood onset obesity. The relevant software is freely available. In next-generation sequencing studies, there are typically systematic differences in sequencing qualities (e.g., depth) between cases and controls, because the entire studies are rarely sequenced in exactly the same way. It has long been appreciated that, in the presence of such differences, the standard genotype calling approach to detecting rare variant associations generally leads to excessive false positive findings. To deal with this, the current “state of the art” is to impose stringent quality control procedures that much of the data is eliminated. We present a method that allows analyzing data with a wide range of differential sequencing qualities between cases and controls. Our method is more powerful than the current practice and can accelerate the search for disease-causing mutations.