Literature DB >> 28161175

A comparison of different algorithms for phasing haplotypes using Holstein cattle genotypes and pedigree data.

Younes Miar1, Mehdi Sargolzaei2, Flavio S Schenkel3.   

Abstract

Phasing genotypes to haplotypes is becoming increasingly important due to its applications in the study of diseases, population and evolutionary genetics, imputation, and so on. Several studies have focused on the development of computational methods that infer haplotype phase from population genotype data. The aim of this study was to compare phasing algorithms implemented in Beagle, Findhap, FImpute, Impute2, and ShapeIt2 software using 50k and 777k (HD) genotyping data. Six scenarios were considered: no-parents, sire-progeny pairs, sire-dam-progeny trios, each with and without pedigree information in Holstein cattle. Algorithms were compared with respect to their phasing accuracy and computational efficiency. In the studied population, Beagle and FImpute were more accurate than other phasing algorithms. Across scenarios, phasing accuracies for Beagle and FImpute were 99.49-99.90% and 99.44-99.99% for 50k, respectively, and 99.90-99.99% and 99.87-99.99% for HD, respectively. Generally, FImpute resulted in higher accuracy when genotypic information of at least one parent was available. In the absence of parental genotypes and pedigree information, Beagle and Impute2 (with double the default number of states) were slightly more accurate than FImpute. Findhap gave high phasing accuracy when parents' genotypes and pedigree information were available. In terms of computing time, Findhap was the fastest algorithm followed by FImpute. FImpute was 30 to 131, 87 to 786, and 353 to 1,400 times faster across scenarios than Beagle, ShapeIt2, and Impute2, respectively. In summary, FImpute and Beagle were the most accurate phasing algorithms. Moreover, the low computational requirement of FImpute makes it an attractive algorithm for phasing genotypes of large livestock populations.
Copyright © 2017 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  haplotype inference; imputation; livestock; phasing accuracy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28161175     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-11590

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


  12 in total

1.  Extending long-range phasing and haplotype library imputation algorithms to large and heterogeneous datasets.

Authors:  Daniel Money; David Wilson; Janez Jenko; Andrew Whalen; Steve Thorn; Gregor Gorjanc; John M Hickey
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 4.297

2.  Assessment of the performance of hidden Markov models for imputation in animal breeding.

Authors:  Andrew Whalen; Gregor Gorjanc; Roger Ros-Freixedes; John M Hickey
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 4.297

3.  Phasing quality assessment in a brown layer population through family- and population-based software.

Authors:  N Frioni; D Cavero; H Simianer; M Erbe
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.797

4.  Comparisons of improved genomic predictions generated by different imputation methods for genotyping by sequencing data in livestock populations.

Authors:  Xiao Wang; Guosheng Su; Dan Hao; Mogens Sandø Lund; Haja N Kadarmideen
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2020-01-07

5.  Investigating the accuracy of imputing autosomal variants in Nellore cattle using the ARS-UCD1.2 assembly of the bovine genome.

Authors:  Isis da Costa Hermisdorff; Raphael Bermal Costa; Lucia Galvão de Albuquerque; Hubert Pausch; Naveen Kumar Kadri
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 3.969

6.  Noninvasive prenatal testing of α-thalassemia and β-thalassemia through population-based parental haplotyping.

Authors:  Chao Chen; Ru Li; Jun Sun; Yaping Zhu; Lu Jiang; Jian Li; Fang Fu; Junhui Wan; Fengyu Guo; Xiaoying An; Yaoshen Wang; Linlin Fan; Yan Sun; Xiaosen Guo; Sumin Zhao; Wanyang Wang; Fanwei Zeng; Yun Yang; Peixiang Ni; Yi Ding; Bixia Xiang; Zhiyu Peng; Can Liao
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 11.117

7.  A Continuous Statistical Phasing Framework for the Analysis of Forensic Mitochondrial DNA Mixtures.

Authors:  Utpal Smart; Jennifer Churchill Cihlar; Sammed N Mandape; Melissa Muenzler; Jonathan L King; Bruce Budowle; August E Woerner
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 4.096

8.  A strategy to improve phasing of whole-genome sequenced individuals through integration of familial information from dense genotype panels.

Authors:  Pierre Faux; Tom Druet
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  A Comparison between Hi-C and 10X Genomics Linked Read Sequencing for Whole Genome Phasing in Hanwoo Cattle.

Authors:  Krishnamoorthy Srikanth; Jong-Eun Park; Dajeong Lim; Jihye Cha; Sang-Rae Cho; In-Cheol Cho; Woncheoul Park
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 4.096

10.  Exploring effective approaches for haplotype block phasing.

Authors:  Ziad Al Bkhetan; Justin Zobel; Adam Kowalczyk; Karin Verspoor; Benjamin Goudey
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.