Literature DB >> 20479147

The use of family relationships and linkage disequilibrium to impute phase and missing genotypes in up to whole-genome sequence density genotypic data.

Theo Meuwissen1, Mike Goddard.   

Abstract

A novel method, called linkage disequilibrium multilocus iterative peeling (LDMIP), for the imputation of phase and missing genotypes is developed. LDMIP performs an iterative peeling step for every locus, which accounts for the family data, and uses a forward-backward algorithm to accumulate information across loci. Marker similarity between haplotype pairs is used to impute possible missing genotypes and phases, which relies on the linkage disequilibrium between closely linked markers. After this imputation step, the combined iterative peeling/forward-backward algorithm is applied again, until convergence. The calculations per iteration scale linearly with number of markers and number of individuals in the pedigree, which makes LDMIP well suited to large numbers of markers and/or large numbers of individuals. Per iteration calculations scale quadratically with the number of alleles, which implies biallelic markers are preferred. In a situation with up to 15% randomly missing genotypes, the error rate of the imputed genotypes was <1% and approximately 99% of the missing genotypes were imputed. In another example, LDMIP was used to impute whole-genome sequence data consisting of 17,321 SNPs on a chromosome. Imputation of the sequence was based on the information of 20 (re)sequenced founder individuals and genotyping their descendants for a panel of 3000 SNPs. The error rate of the imputed SNP genotypes was 10%. However, if the parents of these 20 founders are also sequenced, >99% of missing genotypes are imputed correctly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20479147      PMCID: PMC2927768          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.110.113936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  15 in total

1.  Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium.

Authors:  Albert Tenesa; Pau Navarro; Ben J Hayes; David L Duffy; Geraldine M Clarke; Mike E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2007-03-09       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  A fast and flexible statistical model for large-scale population genotype data: applications to inferring missing genotypes and haplotypic phase.

Authors:  Paul Scheet; Matthew Stephens
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-02-17       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Multipoint identity-by-descent prediction using dense markers to map quantitative trait loci and estimate effective population size.

Authors:  Theo H E Meuwissen; Mike E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Method to estimate genotype probabilities at individual loci in farm livestock.

Authors:  J A van Arendonk; C Smith; B W Kennedy
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Sampling genotype configurations in a large complex pedigree.

Authors:  M Szydlowski; N Gengler
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.380

6.  Descent graphs in pedigree analysis: applications to haplotyping, location scores, and marker-sharing statistics.

Authors:  E Sobel; K Lange
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  A general model for the genetic analysis of pedigree data.

Authors:  R C Elston; J Stewart
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  1971       Impact factor: 0.444

8.  Construction of multilocus genetic linkage maps in humans.

Authors:  E S Lander; P Green
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Detection of sharing by descent, long-range phasing and haplotype imputation.

Authors:  Augustine Kong; Gisli Masson; Michael L Frigge; Arnaldur Gylfason; Pasha Zusmanovich; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Pall I Olason; Andres Ingason; Stacy Steinberg; Thorunn Rafnar; Patrick Sulem; Magali Mouy; Frosti Jonsson; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Hreinn Stefansson; Kari Stefansson
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  A map of recent positive selection in the human genome.

Authors:  Benjamin F Voight; Sridhar Kudaravalli; Xiaoquan Wen; Jonathan K Pritchard
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2006-03-07       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  36 in total

1.  Meuwissen et al. on Genomic Selection.

Authors:  Dirk-Jan de Koning
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Including crossbred pigs in the genomic relationship matrix through utilization of both linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis.

Authors:  M W Iversen; Ø Nordbø; E Gjerlaug-Enger; E Grindflek; M S Lopes; T H E Meuwissen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Accuracy of direct genomic values in Holstein bulls and cows using subsets of SNP markers.

Authors:  Gerhard Moser; Mehar S Khatkar; Ben J Hayes; Herman W Raadsma
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Genomic prediction based on runs of homozygosity.

Authors:  Tu Luan; Xijiang Yu; Marlies Dolezal; Alessandro Bagnato; Theo He Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 4.297

Review 5.  Rediscovering the value of families for psychiatric genetics research.

Authors:  David C Glahn; Vishwajit L Nimgaonkar; Henriette Raventós; Javier Contreras; Andrew M McIntosh; Pippa A Thomson; Assen Jablensky; Nina S McCarthy; Jac C Charlesworth; Nicholas B Blackburn; Juan Manuel Peralta; Emma E M Knowles; Samuel R Mathias; Seth A Ament; Francis J McMahon; Ruben C Gur; Maja Bucan; Joanne E Curran; Laura Almasy; Raquel E Gur; John Blangero
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 15.992

6.  Enlarging a training set for genomic selection by imputation of un-genotyped animals in populations of varying genetic architecture.

Authors:  Eduardo C G Pimentel; Monika Wensch-Dorendorf; Sven König; Hermann H Swalve
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  The importance of identity-by-state information for the accuracy of genomic selection.

Authors:  Tu Luan; John A Woolliams; Jørgen Odegård; Marlies Dolezal; Sergio I Roman-Ponce; Alessandro Bagnato; Theo He Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Genomic evaluations with many more genotypes.

Authors:  Paul M VanRaden; Jeffrey R O'Connell; George R Wiggans; Kent A Weigel
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Genotype imputation for the prediction of genomic breeding values in non-genotyped and low-density genotyped individuals.

Authors:  Matthew A Cleveland; John M Hickey; Brian P Kinghorn
Journal:  BMC Proc       Date:  2011-05-27

10.  Genetic variation in recombination rate in the pig.

Authors:  Martin Johnsson; Andrew Whalen; Roger Ros-Freixedes; Gregor Gorjanc; Ching-Yi Chen; William O Herring; Dirk-Jan de Koning; John M Hickey
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.