BACKGROUND: Clinical use of genotype data requires high positive predictive value (PPV) and thorough understanding of the genotyping platform characteristics. BeadChip arrays, such as the Global Screening Array (GSA), potentially offer a high-throughput, low-cost clinical screen for known variants. We hypothesize that quality assessment and comparison to whole-genome sequence and benchmark data establish the analytical validity of GSA genotyping. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we selected 263 samples from Coriell, generated GSA genotypes in triplicate, generated whole genome sequence (rWGS) genotypes, assessed the quality of each set of genotypes, and compared each set of genotypes to each other and to the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 (1KG) genotypes, a performance benchmark. For 59 genes (MAP59), we also performed theoretical and empirical evaluation of variants deemed medically actionable predispositions. RESULTS: Quality analyses detected sample contamination and increased assay failure along the chip margins. Comparison to benchmark data demonstrated that > 82% of the GSA assays had a PPV of 1. GSA assays targeting transitions, genomic regions of high complexity, and common variants performed better than those targeting transversions, regions of low complexity, and rare variants. Comparison of GSA data to rWGS and 1KG data showed > 99% performance across all measured parameters. Consistent with predictions from prior studies, the GSA detection of variation within the MAP59 genes was 3/261. CONCLUSION: We establish the analytical validity of GSA assays using quality analytics and comparison to benchmark and rWGS data. GSA assays meet the standards of a clinical screen although assays interrogating rare variants, transversions, and variants within low-complexity regions require careful evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Clinical use of genotype data requires high positive predictive value (PPV) and thorough understanding of the genotyping platform characteristics. BeadChip arrays, such as the Global Screening Array (GSA), potentially offer a high-throughput, low-cost clinical screen for known variants. We hypothesize that quality assessment and comparison to whole-genome sequence and benchmark data establish the analytical validity of GSA genotyping. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we selected 263 samples from Coriell, generated GSA genotypes in triplicate, generated whole genome sequence (rWGS) genotypes, assessed the quality of each set of genotypes, and compared each set of genotypes to each other and to the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 (1KG) genotypes, a performance benchmark. For 59 genes (MAP59), we also performed theoretical and empirical evaluation of variants deemed medically actionable predispositions. RESULTS: Quality analyses detected sample contamination and increased assay failure along the chip margins. Comparison to benchmark data demonstrated that > 82% of the GSA assays had a PPV of 1. GSA assays targeting transitions, genomic regions of high complexity, and common variants performed better than those targeting transversions, regions of low complexity, and rare variants. Comparison of GSA data to rWGS and 1KG data showed > 99% performance across all measured parameters. Consistent with predictions from prior studies, the GSA detection of variation within the MAP59 genes was 3/261. CONCLUSION: We establish the analytical validity of GSA assays using quality analytics and comparison to benchmark and rWGS data. GSA assays meet the standards of a clinical screen although assays interrogating rare variants, transversions, and variants within low-complexity regions require careful evaluation.
Authors: Jacqueline I Goldstein; Andrew Crenshaw; Jason Carey; George B Grant; Jared Maguire; Menachem Fromer; Colm O'Dushlaine; Jennifer L Moran; Kimberly Chambert; Christine Stevens; Pamela Sklar; Christina M Hultman; Shaun Purcell; Steven A McCarroll; Patrick F Sullivan; Mark J Daly; Benjamin M Neale Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Michael O Dorschner; Laura M Amendola; Emily H Turner; Peggy D Robertson; Brian H Shirts; Carlos J Gallego; Robin L Bennett; Kelly L Jones; Mari J Tokita; James T Bennett; Jerry H Kim; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; Daniel S Kim; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Arno G Motulsky; C Ronald Scott; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh; Wylie Burke; Wendy H Raskind; Peter Byers; Fuki M Hisama; Deborah A Nickerson; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Tracy A O'Mara; Dylan M Glubb; Frederic Amant; Daniela Annibali; Katie Ashton; John Attia; Paul L Auer; Matthias W Beckmann; Amanda Black; Manjeet K Bolla; Hiltrud Brauch; Hermann Brenner; Louise Brinton; Daniel D Buchanan; Barbara Burwinkel; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen J Chanock; Chu Chen; Maxine M Chen; Timothy H T Cheng; Christine L Clarke; Mark Clendenning; Linda S Cook; Fergus J Couch; Angela Cox; Marta Crous-Bous; Kamila Czene; Felix Day; Joe Dennis; Jeroen Depreeuw; Jennifer Anne Doherty; Thilo Dörk; Sean C Dowdy; Matthias Dürst; Arif B Ekici; Peter A Fasching; Brooke L Fridley; Christine M Friedenreich; Lin Fritschi; Jenny Fung; Montserrat García-Closas; Mia M Gaudet; Graham G Giles; Ellen L Goode; Maggie Gorman; Christopher A Haiman; Per Hall; Susan E Hankison; Catherine S Healey; Alexander Hein; Peter Hillemanns; Shirley Hodgson; Erling A Hoivik; Elizabeth G Holliday; John L Hopper; David J Hunter; Angela Jones; Camilla Krakstad; Vessela N Kristensen; Diether Lambrechts; Loic Le Marchand; Xiaolin Liang; Annika Lindblom; Jolanta Lissowska; Jirong Long; Lingeng Lu; Anthony M Magliocco; Lynn Martin; Mark McEvoy; Alfons Meindl; Kyriaki Michailidou; Roger L Milne; Miriam Mints; Grant W Montgomery; Rami Nassir; Håkan Olsson; Irene Orlow; Geoffrey Otton; Claire Palles; John R B Perry; Julian Peto; Loreall Pooler; Jennifer Prescott; Tony Proietto; Timothy R Rebbeck; Harvey A Risch; Peter A W Rogers; Matthias Rübner; Ingo Runnebaum; Carlotta Sacerdote; Gloria E Sarto; Fredrick Schumacher; Rodney J Scott; V Wendy Setiawan; Mitul Shah; Xin Sheng; Xiao-Ou Shu; Melissa C Southey; Anthony J Swerdlow; Emma Tham; Jone Trovik; Constance Turman; Jonathan P Tyrer; Celine Vachon; David VanDen Berg; Adriaan Vanderstichele; Zhaoming Wang; Penelope M Webb; Nicolas Wentzensen; Henrica M J Werner; Stacey J Winham; Alicja Wolk; Lucy Xia; Yong-Bing Xiang; Hannah P Yang; Herbert Yu; Wei Zheng; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Peter Kraft; Immaculata De Vivo; Ian Tomlinson; Douglas F Easton; Amanda B Spurdle; Deborah J Thompson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Gabrielle S Sellick; Lynn R Goldin; Ruth W Wild; Susan L Slager; Laura Ressenti; Sara S Strom; Martin J S Dyer; Francesca R Mauro; Gerald E Marti; Stephen Fuller; Matthew Lyttelton; Thomas J Kipps; Michael J Keating; Timothy G Call; Daniel Catovsky; Neil Caporaso; Richard S Houlston Journal: Blood Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Megan L Grove; Bing Yu; Barbara J Cochran; Talin Haritunians; Joshua C Bis; Kent D Taylor; Mark Hansen; Ingrid B Borecki; L Adrienne Cupples; Myriam Fornage; Vilmundur Gudnason; Tamara B Harris; Sekar Kathiresan; Robert Kraaij; Lenore J Launer; Daniel Levy; Yongmei Liu; Thomas Mosley; Gina M Peloso; Bruce M Psaty; Stephen S Rich; Fernando Rivadeneira; David S Siscovick; Albert V Smith; Andre Uitterlinden; Cornelia M van Duijn; James G Wilson; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jerome I Rotter; Eric Boerwinkle Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 3.240