OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the influence of quality control (QC) decisions using two genotype calling algorithms, CRLMM and Birdseed, designed for the Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0. METHODS: Various QC options were tried using the two algorithms and comparisons were made on subject and call rate and on association results using two data sets. RESULTS: For Birdseed, we recommend using the contrast QC instead of QC call rate for sample QC. For CRLMM, we recommend using the signal-to-noise rate ≥4 for sample QC and a posterior probability of 90% for genotype accuracy. For both algorithms, we recommend calling the genotype separately for each plate, and dropping SNPs with a lower call rate (<95%) before evaluating samples with lower call rates. To investigate whether the genotype calls from the two algorithms impacted the genome-wide association results, we performed association analysis using data from the GENOA cohort; we observed that the number of significant SNPs were similar using either CRLMM or Birdseed. CONCLUSIONS: Using our suggested workflow both algorithms performed similarly; however, fewer samples were removed and CRLMM took half the time to run our 854 study samples (4.2 h) compared to Birdseed (8.4 h).
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the influence of quality control (QC) decisions using two genotype calling algorithms, CRLMM and Birdseed, designed for the Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0. METHODS: Various QC options were tried using the two algorithms and comparisons were made on subject and call rate and on association results using two data sets. RESULTS: For Birdseed, we recommend using the contrast QC instead of QC call rate for sample QC. For CRLMM, we recommend using the signal-to-noise rate ≥4 for sample QC and a posterior probability of 90% for genotype accuracy. For both algorithms, we recommend calling the genotype separately for each plate, and dropping SNPs with a lower call rate (<95%) before evaluating samples with lower call rates. To investigate whether the genotype calls from the two algorithms impacted the genome-wide association results, we performed association analysis using data from the GENOA cohort; we observed that the number of significant SNPs were similar using either CRLMM or Birdseed. CONCLUSIONS: Using our suggested workflow both algorithms performed similarly; however, fewer samples were removed and CRLMM took half the time to run our 854 study samples (4.2 h) compared to Birdseed (8.4 h).
Authors: Anna Pluzhnikov; Jennifer E Below; Anuar Konkashbaev; Anna Tikhomirov; Emily Kistner-Griffin; Cheryl A Roe; Dan L Nicolae; Nancy J Cox Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-07-09 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Shaun Purcell; Benjamin Neale; Kathe Todd-Brown; Lori Thomas; Manuel A R Ferreira; David Bender; Julian Maller; Pamela Sklar; Paul I W de Bakker; Mark J Daly; Pak C Sham Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Stephen Turner; Loren L Armstrong; Yuki Bradford; Christopher S Carlson; Dana C Crawford; Andrew T Crenshaw; Mariza de Andrade; Kimberly F Doheny; Jonathan L Haines; Geoffrey Hayes; Gail Jarvik; Lan Jiang; Iftikhar J Kullo; Rongling Li; Hua Ling; Teri A Manolio; Martha Matsumoto; Catherine A McCarty; Andrew N McDavid; Daniel B Mirel; Justin E Paschall; Elizabeth W Pugh; Luke V Rasmussen; Russell A Wilke; Rebecca L Zuvich; Marylyn D Ritchie Journal: Curr Protoc Hum Genet Date: 2011-01
Authors: Susan L Slager; Kari G Rabe; Sara J Achenbach; Celine M Vachon; Lynn R Goldin; Sara S Strom; Mark C Lanasa; Logan G Spector; Laura Z Rassenti; Jose F Leis; Nicola J Camp; Martha Glenn; Neil E Kay; Julie M Cunningham; Curtis A Hanson; Gerald E Marti; J Brice Weinberg; Vicki A Morrison; Brian K Link; Timothy G Call; Neil E Caporaso; James R Cerhan Journal: Blood Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Shin Lin; Benilton Carvalho; David J Cutler; Dan E Arking; Aravinda Chakravarti; Rafael A Irizarry Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2008-04-03 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: B V Hooli; Z M Kovacs-Vajna; K Mullin; M A Blumenthal; M Mattheisen; C Zhang; C Lange; G Mohapatra; L Bertram; R E Tanzi Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: C Herold; B V Hooli; K Mullin; T Liu; J T Roehr; M Mattheisen; A R Parrado; L Bertram; C Lange; R E Tanzi Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 15.992