Literature DB >> 16557026

The impact of missing and erroneous genotypes on tagging SNP selection and power of subsequent association tests.

Wenlei Liu1, Wei Zhao, Gary A Chase.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) serve as effective markers for localizing disease susceptibility genes, but current genotyping technologies are inadequate for genotyping all available SNP markers in a typical linkage/association study. Much attention has recently been paid to methods for selecting the minimal informative subset of SNPs in identifying haplotypes, but there has been little investigation of the effect of missing or erroneous genotypes on the performance of these SNP selection algorithms and subsequent association tests using the selected tagging SNPs. The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of missing genotype or genotyping error on tagging SNP selection and subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests using the selected tagging SNPs.
METHODS: Through two sets of simulations, we evaluated the performance of three tagging SNP selection programs in the presence of missing or erroneous genotypes: Clayton's diversity based program htstep, Carlson's linkage disequilibrium (LD) based program ldSelect, and Stram's coefficient of determination based program tagsnp.exe.
RESULTS: When randomly selected known loci were relabeled as 'missing', we found that the average number of tagging SNPs selected by all three algorithms changed very little and the power of subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests using the selected tagging SNPs remained close to the power of these tests in the absence of missing genotype. When random genotyping errors were introduced, we found that the average number of tagging SNPs selected by all three algorithms increased. In data sets simulated according to the haplotype frequecies in the CYP19 region, Stram's program had larger increase than Carlson's and Clayton's programs. In data sets simulated under the coalescent model, Carlson's program had the largest increase and Clayton's program had the smallest increase. In both sets of simulations, with the presence of genotyping errors, the power of the haplotype tests from all three programs decreased quickly, but there was not much reduction in power of the single marker tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Missing genotypes do not seem to have much impact on tagging SNP selection and subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests. In contrast, genotyping errors could have severe impact on tagging SNP selection and haplotype tests, but not on single marker tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16557026     DOI: 10.1159/000092141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Hered        ISSN: 0001-5652            Impact factor:   0.444


  5 in total

Review 1.  Hypothesis-driven candidate gene association studies: practical design and analytical considerations.

Authors:  Timothy J Jorgensen; Ingo Ruczinski; Bailey Kessing; Michael W Smith; Yin Yao Shugart; Anthony J Alberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-09-17       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Estimating the single nucleotide polymorphism genotype misclassification from routine double measurements in a large epidemiologic sample.

Authors:  Iris M Heid; Claudia Lamina; Helmut Küchenhoff; Guido Fischer; Norman Klopp; Melanie Kolz; Harald Grallert; Caren Vollmert; Stefanie Wagner; Cornelia Huth; Julia Müller; Martina Müller; Steven C Hunt; Annette Peters; Bernhard Paulweber; H-Erich Wichmann; Florian Kronenberg; Thomas Illig
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  A simple and fast two-locus quality control test to detect false positives due to batch effects in genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Sang Hong Lee; Dale R Nyholt; Stuart Macgregor; Anjali K Henders; Krina T Zondervan; Grant W Montgomery; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  Impact of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and the power of haplotype-based association methods.

Authors:  Vivien Marquard; Lars Beckmann; Iris M Heid; Claudia Lamina; Jenny Chang-Claude
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 2.797

5.  Missing call bias in high-throughput genotyping.

Authors:  Wenqing Fu; Yi Wang; Ying Wang; Rui Li; Rong Lin; Li Jin
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 3.969

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.