Literature DB >> 25045914

Evaluation of measures of correctness of genotype imputation in the context of genomic prediction: a review of livestock applications.

M P L Calus1, A C Bouwman1, J M Hickey2, R F Veerkamp1, H A Mulder3.   

Abstract

In livestock, many studies have reported the results of imputation to 50k single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes for animals that are genotyped with low-density SNP panels. The objective of this paper is to review different measures of correctness of imputation, and to evaluate their utility depending on the purpose of the imputed genotypes. Across studies, imputation accuracy, computed as the correlation between true and imputed genotypes, and imputation error rates, that counts the number of incorrectly imputed alleles, are commonly used measures of imputation correctness. Based on the nature of both measures and results reported in the literature, imputation accuracy appears to be a more useful measure of the correctness of imputation than imputation error rates, because imputation accuracy does not depend on minor allele frequency (MAF), whereas imputation error rate depends on MAF. Therefore imputation accuracy can be better compared across loci with different MAF. Imputation accuracy depends on the ability of identifying the correct haplotype of a SNP, but many other factors have been identified as well, including the number of genotyped immediate ancestors, the number of animals with genotypes at the high-density panel, the SNP density on the low- and high-density panel, the MAF of the imputed SNP and whether imputed SNP are located at the end of a chromosome or not. Some of these factors directly contribute to the linkage disequilibrium between imputed SNP and SNP on the low-density panel. When imputation accuracy is assessed as a predictor for the accuracy of subsequent genomic prediction, we recommend that: (1) individual-specific imputation accuracies should be used that are computed after centring and scaling both true and imputed genotypes; and (2) imputation of gene dosage is preferred over imputation of the most likely genotype, as this increases accuracy and reduces bias of the imputed genotypes and the subsequent genomic predictions.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25045914     DOI: 10.1017/S1751731114001803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Animal        ISSN: 1751-7311            Impact factor:   3.240


  29 in total

1.  Comparing strategies for selection of low-density SNPs for imputation-mediated genomic prediction in U. S. Holsteins.

Authors:  Jun He; Jiaqi Xu; Xiao-Lin Wu; Stewart Bauck; Jungjae Lee; Gota Morota; Stephen D Kachman; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 1.082

2.  An imputed whole-genome sequence-based GWAS approach pinpoints causal mutations for complex traits in a specific swine population.

Authors:  Guorong Yan; Xianxian Liu; Shijun Xiao; Wenshui Xin; Wenwu Xu; Yiping Li; Tao Huang; Jiangtao Qin; Lei Xie; Junwu Ma; Zhiyan Zhang; Lusheng Huang
Journal:  Sci China Life Sci       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 6.038

3.  Genotype imputation in the domestic dog.

Authors:  S G Friedenberg; K M Meurs
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 2.957

4.  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

5.  Fast imputation using medium or low-coverage sequence data.

Authors:  Paul M VanRaden; Chuanyu Sun; Jeffrey R O'Connell
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.797

6.  Imputation of genotypes in Danish purebred and two-way crossbred pigs using low-density panels.

Authors:  Tao Xiang; Peipei Ma; Tage Ostersen; Andres Legarra; Ole F Christensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  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

8.  Exome sequence genotype imputation in globally diverse hexaploid wheat accessions.

Authors:  Fan Shi; Josquin Tibbits; Raj K Pasam; Pippa Kay; Debbie Wong; Joanna Petkowski; Kerrie L Forrest; Ben J Hayes; Alina Akhunova; John Davies; Steven Webb; German C Spangenberg; Eduard Akhunov; Matthew J Hayden; Hans D Daetwyler
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 5.699

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.