Literature DB >> 23684022

Comparison of different methods for imputing genome-wide marker genotypes in Swedish and Finnish Red Cattle.

P Ma1, R F Brøndum, Q Zhang, M S Lund, G Su.   

Abstract

This study investigated the imputation accuracy of different methods, considering both the minor allele frequency and relatedness between individuals in the reference and test data sets. Two data sets from the combined population of Swedish and Finnish Red Cattle were used to test the influence of these factors on the accuracy of imputation. Data set 1 consisted of 2,931 reference bulls and 971 test bulls, and was used for validation of imputation from 3,000 markers (3K) to 54,000 markers (54K). Data set 2 contained 341 bulls in the reference set and 117 in the test set, and was used for validation of imputation from 54K to high density [777,000 markers (777K)]. Both test sets were divided into 4 groups according to their relationship to the reference population. Five imputation methods (Beagle, IMPUTE2, findhap, AlphaImpute, and FImpute) were used in this study. Imputation accuracy was measured as the allele correct rate and correlation between imputed and true genotypes. Results demonstrated that the accuracy was lower when imputing from 3K to 54K than from 54K to 777K. Using various imputation methods, the allele correct rates varied from 93.5 to 97.1% when imputing from 3K to 54K, and from 97.1 to 99.3% when imputing from 54K to 777K; IMPUTE2 and Beagle resulted in higher accuracies and were more robust under various conditions than the other 3 methods when imputing from 3K to 54K. The accuracy of imputation using FImpute was similar to those results from Beagle and IMPUTE2 when imputing from 54K to high density, and higher than the remaining 2 methods. The results also showed that a closer relationship between test set and reference set led to a higher accuracy for all the methods. In addition, the correct rate was higher when the minor allele frequency was lower, whereas the correlation coefficient was lower when the minor allele frequency was lower. The results indicate that Beagle and IMPUTE2 provide the most robust and accurate imputation accuracies, but considering computing time and memory usage, FImpute is another alternative method.
Copyright © 2013 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23684022     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-6316

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  25 in total

1.  Genotyping, the Usefulness of Imputation to Increase SNP Density, and Imputation Methods and Tools.

Authors:  Florence Phocas
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

2.  Assessing single-nucleotide polymorphism selection methods for the development of a low-density panel optimized for imputation in South African Drakensberger beef cattle.

Authors:  Simon F Lashmar; Donagh P Berry; Rian Pierneef; Farai C Muchadeyi; Carina Visser
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Comparison among three variant callers and assessment of the accuracy of imputation from SNP array data to whole-genome sequence level in chicken.

Authors:  Guiyan Ni; Tim M Strom; Hubert Pausch; Christian Reimer; Rudolf Preisinger; Henner Simianer; Malena Erbe
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 3.969

4.  A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives.

Authors:  Mehdi Sargolzaei; Jacques P Chesnais; Flavio S Schenkel
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 3.969

5.  Accuracy of genotype imputation in Nelore cattle.

Authors:  Roberto Carvalheiro; Solomon A Boison; Haroldo H R Neves; Mehdi Sargolzaei; Flavio S Schenkel; Yuri T Utsunomiya; Ana Maria Pérez O'Brien; Johann Sölkner; John C McEwan; Curtis P Van Tassell; Tad S Sonstegard; José Fernando Garcia
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Imputation of sequence level genotypes in the Franches-Montagnes horse breed.

Authors:  Mirjam Frischknecht; Markus Neuditschko; Vidhya Jagannathan; Cord Drögemüller; Jens Tetens; Georg Thaller; Tosso Leeb; Stefan Rieder
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Accuracy of imputation using the most common sires as reference population in layer chickens.

Authors:  Marzieh Heidaritabar; Mario P L Calus; Addie Vereijken; Martien A M Groenen; John W M Bastiaansen
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 2.797

8.  Strategies for genotype imputation in composite beef cattle.

Authors:  Tatiane C S Chud; Ricardo V Ventura; Flavio S Schenkel; Roberto Carvalheiro; Marcos E Buzanskas; Jaqueline O Rosa; Maurício de Alvarenga Mudadu; Marcos Vinicius G B da Silva; Fabiana B Mokry; Cintia R Marcondes; Luciana C A Regitano; Danísio P Munari
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 2.797

9.  Imputation of non-genotyped individuals based on genotyped relatives: assessing the imputation accuracy of a real case scenario in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Aniek C Bouwman; John M Hickey; Mario P L Calus; Roel F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Strategies for imputation to whole genome sequence using a single or multi-breed reference population in cattle.

Authors:  Rasmus Froberg Brøndum; Bernt Guldbrandtsen; Goutam Sahana; Mogens Sandø Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.