Literature DB >> 30669139

Comprehensive Assessment of Genotype Imputation Performance.

Shuo Shi1,2,3, Na Yuan2, Ming Yang4, Zhenglin Du2, Jinyue Wang1,2,3, Xin Sheng1,2,3, Jiayan Wu1, Jingfa Xiao5,6,7.   

Abstract

Genotype imputation is a process of estimating missing ge-notypes from the haplotype or genotype reference panel. It can effectively boost the power of detecting single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genome-wide association studies, integrate multi-studies for meta-analysis, and be applied in fine-mapping studies. The performance of genotype imputation is affected by many factors, including software, reference selection, sample size, and SNP density/sequencing coverage. A systematical evaluation of the imputation performance of current popular software will benefit future studies. Here, we evaluate imputation performances of Beagle4.1, IMPUTE2, MACH+Minimac3, and SHAPEIT2+ IM-PUTE2 using test samples of East Asian ancestry and references of the 1000 Genomes Project. The result indicated the accuracy of IMPUTE2 (99.18%) is slightly higher than that of the others (Beagle4.1: 98.94%, MACH+Minimac3: 98.51%, and SHAPEIT2+IMPUTE2: 99.08%). To achieve good and stable imputation quality, the minimum requirement of SNP density needs to be > 200/Mb. The imputation accuracies of IMPUTE2 and Beagle4.1 were under the minor influence of the study sample size. The contribution extent of reference to genotype imputation performance relied on software selection. We assessed the imputation performance on SNPs generated by next-generation whole genome sequencing and found that SNP sets detected by sequencing with 15× depth could be mostly got by imputing from the haplotype reference panel of the 1000 Genomes Project based on SNP data detected by sequencing with 4× depth. All of the imputation software had a weaker performance in low minor allele frequency SNP regions because of the bias of reference or software. In the future, more comprehensive reference panels or new algorithm developments may rise up to this challenge.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Keywords:  Genome-wide association study; Genotype imputation; Minor allele frequency; Whole genome sequencing

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30669139     DOI: 10.1159/000489758

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Hered        ISSN: 0001-5652            Impact factor:   0.444


  16 in total

1.  Privacy-preserving genotype imputation with fully homomorphic encryption.

Authors:  Gamze Gürsoy; Eduardo Chielle; Charlotte M Brannon; Michail Maniatakos; Mark Gerstein
Journal:  Cell Syst       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 10.304

2.  RefRGim: an intelligent reference panel reconstruction method for genotype imputation with convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  Shuo Shi; Qiheng Qian; Shuhuan Yu; Qi Wang; Jinyue Wang; Jingyao Zeng; Zhenglin Du; Jingfa Xiao
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 11.622

3.  The promise and deceit of genomic selection component analyses.

Authors:  John K Kelly
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Your height affects your health: genetic determinants and health-related outcomes in Taiwan.

Authors:  Jian-Shiun Chiou; Chi-Fung Cheng; Wen-Miin Liang; Chen-Hsing Chou; Chung-Hsing Wang; Wei-De Lin; Mu-Lin Chiu; Wei-Chung Cheng; Cheng-Wen Lin; Ting-Hsu Lin; Chiu-Chu Liao; Shao-Mei Huang; Chang-Hai Tsai; Ying-Ju Lin; Fuu-Jen Tsai
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 11.150

5.  SNP characteristics and validation success in genome wide association studies.

Authors:  Olga Y Gorlova; Xiangjun Xiao; Spiridon Tsavachidis; Christopher I Amos; Ivan P Gorlov
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 5.881

6.  A comparative analysis of current phasing and imputation software.

Authors:  Adriano De Marino; Abdallah Amr Mahmoud; Madhuchanda Bose; Karatuğ Ozan Bircan; Andrew Terpolovsky; Varuna Bamunusinghe; Sandra Bohn; Umar Khan; Biljana Novković; Puya G Yazdi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  False positive findings during genome-wide association studies with imputation: influence of allele frequency and imputation accuracy.

Authors:  Zhihui Zhang; Xiangjun Xiao; Wen Zhou; Dakai Zhu; Christopher I Amos
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 5.121

8.  Why are rare variants hard to impute? Coalescent models reveal theoretical limits in existing algorithms.

Authors:  Yichen Si; Brett Vanderwerff; Sebastian Zöllner
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Attacks on genetic privacy via uploads to genealogical databases.

Authors:  Michael D Edge; Graham Coop
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 8.713

10.  Sequencing and imputation in GWAS: Cost-effective strategies to increase power and genomic coverage across diverse populations.

Authors:  Corbin Quick; Pramod Anugu; Solomon Musani; Scott T Weiss; Esteban G Burchard; Marquitta J White; Kevin L Keys; Francesco Cucca; Carlo Sidore; Michael Boehnke; Christian Fuchsberger
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 2.135

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.