Rogers Ally, Beck Andrew, Tintle Nathan L
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Dordt College, Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA.
Department of Mathematics, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60660, USA.
BMC Proc. 2014 Jun 17;8(Suppl 1 Genetic Analysis Workshop 18Vanessa Olmo):S22. doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-8-S1-S22. eCollection 2014.
Genotype errors are well known to increase type I errors and/or decrease power in related tests of genotype-phenotype association, depending on whether the genotype error mechanism is associated with the phenotype. These relationships hold for both single and multimarker tests of genotype-phenotype association. To assess the potential for genotype errors in Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 (GAW18) data, where no gold standard genotype calls are available, we explored concordance rates between sequencing, imputation, and microarray genotype calls. Our analysis shows that missing data rates for sequenced individuals are high and that there is a modest amount of called genotype discordance between the 2 platforms, with discordance most common for lower minor allele frequency (MAF) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Some evidence for discordance rates that were different between phenotypes was observed, and we identified a number of cases where different technologies identified different bases at the variant site. Type I errors and power loss is possible as a result of missing genotypes and errors in called genotypes in downstream analysis of GAW18 data.
众所周知,基因型错误会增加I型错误和/或降低基因型-表型关联相关检验的效能,这取决于基因型错误机制是否与表型相关。这些关系在基因型-表型关联的单标记和多标记检验中均成立。为了评估遗传分析研讨会18(GAW18)数据中基因型错误的可能性(该数据没有金标准基因型分型结果),我们探讨了测序、填充和微阵列基因型分型结果之间的一致性率。我们的分析表明,测序个体的缺失数据率很高,并且两个平台之间存在一定数量的基因型分型不一致情况,对于低频次要等位基因频率(MAF)的单核苷酸多态性(SNP),不一致情况最为常见。观察到一些证据表明不同表型之间的不一致率存在差异,并且我们确定了许多不同技术在变异位点鉴定出不同碱基的情况。在GAW18数据的下游分析中,由于基因型缺失和基因型分型错误,可能会出现I型错误和效能损失。