Literature DB >> 28019059

Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study.

Lin Hou1,2, Ning Sun1,2, Shrikant Mane3, Fred Sayward1,4, Nallakkandi Rajeevan1,4, Kei-Hoi Cheung1,4, Kelly Cho5,6, Saiju Pyarajan5,6, Mihaela Aslan1,7, Perry Miller1,4, Philip D Harvey8,9, J Michael Gaziano5,6, John Concato1,7, Hongyu Zhao1,2.   

Abstract

A key step in genomic studies is to assess high throughput measurements across millions of markers for each participant's DNA, either using microarrays or sequencing techniques. Accurate genotype calling is essential for downstream statistical analysis of genotype-phenotype associations, and next generation sequencing (NGS) has recently become a more common approach in genomic studies. How the accuracy of variant calling in NGS-based studies affects downstream association analysis has not, however, been studied using empirical data in which both microarrays and NGS were available. In this article, we investigate the impact of variant calling errors on the statistical power to identify associations between single nucleotides and disease, and on associations between multiple rare variants and disease. Both differential and nondifferential genotyping errors are considered. Our results show that the power of burden tests for rare variants is strongly influenced by the specificity in variant calling, but is rather robust with regard to sensitivity. By using the variant calling accuracies estimated from a substudy of a Cooperative Studies Program project conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs, we show that the power of association tests is mostly retained with commonly adopted variant calling pipelines. An R package, GWAS.PC, is provided to accommodate power analysis that takes account of genotyping errors (http://zhaocenter.org/software/).
© 2016 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genome wide association test; genotyping; genotyping error; sequencing; statistical power

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28019059      PMCID: PMC5604789          DOI: 10.1002/gepi.22027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Epidemiol        ISSN: 0741-0395            Impact factor:   2.135


  36 in total

1.  What SNP genotyping errors are most costly for genetic association studies?

Authors:  Sun Jung Kang; Derek Gordon; Stephen J Finch
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 2.  Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits.

Authors:  Joel N Hirschhorn; Mark J Daly
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Effects of differential genotyping error rate on the type I error probability of case-control studies.

Authors:  Valentina Moskvina; Nick Craddock; Peter Holmans; Michael J Owen; Michael C O'Donovan
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2006-04-06       Impact factor: 0.444

Review 4.  Factors affecting statistical power in the detection of genetic association.

Authors:  Derek Gordon; Stephen J Finch
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 14.808

5.  Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits.

Authors:  Lucia A Hindorff; Praveen Sethupathy; Heather A Junkins; Erin M Ramos; Jayashri P Mehta; Francis S Collins; Teri A Manolio
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  The genetics of functional disability in schizophrenia and bipolar illness: Methods and initial results for VA cooperative study #572.

Authors:  Philip D Harvey; Larry J Siever; Grant D Huang; Sumitra Muralidhar; Hongyu Zhao; Perry Miller; Mihaela Aslan; Shrikant Mane; Margaret McNamara; Theresa Gleason; Mary Brophy; Ronald Przygodszki; Timothy J O'Leary; Michael Gaziano; John Concato
Journal:  Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 3.568

7.  Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height.

Authors:  Jian Yang; Beben Benyamin; Brian P McEvoy; Scott Gordon; Anjali K Henders; Dale R Nyholt; Pamela A Madden; Andrew C Heath; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 38.330

8.  Single-variant and multi-variant trend tests for genetic association with next-generation sequencing that are robust to sequencing error.

Authors:  Wonkuk Kim; Douglas Londono; Lisheng Zhou; Jinchuan Xing; Alejandro Q Nato; Anthony Musolf; Tara C Matise; Stephen J Finch; Derek Gordon
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 0.444

9.  The impact of genotype calling errors on family-based studies.

Authors:  Qi Yan; Rui Chen; James S Sutcliffe; Edwin H Cook; Daniel E Weeks; Bingshan Li; Wei Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Exome sequencing in sporadic autism spectrum disorders identifies severe de novo mutations.

Authors:  Brian J O'Roak; Pelagia Deriziotis; Choli Lee; Laura Vives; Jerrod J Schwartz; Santhosh Girirajan; Emre Karakoc; Alexandra P Mackenzie; Sarah B Ng; Carl Baker; Mark J Rieder; Deborah A Nickerson; Raphael Bernier; Simon E Fisher; Jay Shendure; Evan E Eichler
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2011-05-15       Impact factor: 38.330

View more
  2 in total

1.  Genomics of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: Methods and rationale for Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #575B.

Authors:  Krishnan Radhakrishnan; Mihaela Aslan; Kelly M Harrington; Robert H Pietrzak; Grant Huang; Sumitra Muralidhar; Kelly Cho; Rachel Quaden; David Gagnon; Saiju Pyarajan; Ning Sun; Hongyu Zhao; Michael Gaziano; John Concato; Murray B Stein; Joel Gelernter
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 4.035

2.  Allele balance bias identifies systematic genotyping errors and false disease associations.

Authors:  Francesc Muyas; Mattia Bosio; Anna Puig; Hana Susak; Laura Domènech; Georgia Escaramis; Luis Zapata; German Demidov; Xavier Estivill; Raquel Rabionet; Stephan Ossowski
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 4.878

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.