Impacts of SNP genotyping call rate and SNP genotyping error rate on imputation accuracy inHolsteincattle
Received date: 2018-11-30
Revised date: 2019-04-16
Online published: 2019-05-28
Supported by
Supported by Hundred-Talent Project of Hunan Province, Key Researchand Development Program of Hunan Province(2018NK2081);Hunan Innovation Center of Animal Safety Production and Key Researchand Development Program of Changsha City(kq1801014)
Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips have been widely used in genetic studies and breeding applications in animal and plant species. The quality of SNP genotypes is of paramount importance. More often than not, there are situations in which a number of genotypes may fail, requiring them to be imputed. There are also situations in which ungenotyped loci need to be imputed between different chips, or high-density genotypes need to be imputed based on low-density genotypes. Under these circumstances, the validity and reliability of subsequent data analyses is subject to the accuracy of these imputed genotypes. For justifying a better understanding of factors affecting imputation accuracy, in the present study, the impacts of SNP genotyping call rate and SNP genotyping error rate on the accuracy of genotype imputation were investigated under two scenarios in 20 116 U.S. Holstein cattle, each genotyped with a GGP 50K SNP chip. When the two factors were not correlated in scenario 1, simulated genotyping call rate varied from 50% to 100% and simulated genotyping error rate changed from 0% to 50%, with both factors being independent of each other. In scenario 2, genotyping error rates were correlated with genotyping call rate, and the relationship was set up by fitting a linear regression model between the two variables on a real dataset. That is, the simulated SNP call rate varied from 100% to 50% whereas the SNP genotyping rate changed from 0% to 13.55%. Finally, a 5-fold cross-validation was used to assess the subsequent imputation accuracy. The results showed that when original SNP genotyping call rate were independent of SNP genotyping error rate, the imputation accuracy did not change significantly with the original genotyping call rate (P>0.05), but it decreased significantly as the genotyping error rate increased (P<0.01). However, when original genotyping call rate was negatively correlated with genotyping error rate, the imputation error increased with elevated original genotyping error rate. In both scenarios, genotyping call rate needs to be no less than 0.90 in order to obtain 98% or higher genotype imputation accuracy. The present results can provide guidance for establishing quality assurance criteria for SNP genotyping in practice.
Key words: SNP chip; genotyping; imputation accuracy; call rate; error rate
Zhi Li,Jun He,Jun Jiang,Richard G. Tait Jr.,Stewart Bauck,Wei Guo,Xiao-Lin Wu . Impacts of SNP genotyping call rate and SNP genotyping error rate on imputation accuracy inHolsteincattle[J]. Hereditas(Beijing), 2019 , 41(7) : 644 -652 . DOI: 10.16288/j.yczz.18-319
| [1] | Blasco A, Toro MA . A short critical history of the application of genomics to animal breeding. LivestSci, 2014,166(8):4-9. |
| [2] | Thomson M . High-throughput SNP genotyping to accelerate crop improvement. Plant Breed Biotechnol, 2014,2(3):195-212. |
| [3] | Scott LJ, Mohlke KL, Bonnycastle LL, Willer CJ, Li Y, Duren WL, Erdos MR, Stringham HM, Chines PS, Jackson AU, Prokunina-Olsson L, Ding CJ, Swift AJ, Narisu N, Hu T, Pruim R, Xiao R, Li XY, Conneely KN, Riebow NL, Sprau AG, Tong M, White PP, Hetrick KN, Barnhart MW, Bark CW, Goldstein JL, Watkins L, Xiang F, Saramies J, Buchanan TA, Watanabe RM, Valle TT, Kinnunen L, Abecasis GR, Pugh EW, Doheny KF, Bergman RN, Tuomilehto J, Collins FS, Boehnke M . A genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in finns detects multiple susceptibility variants. Science, 2007,316(5829):1341-1345. |
| [4] | Duerr RH, Taylor KD, Brant SR, Rioux JD, Silverberg MS, Daly MJ, Steinhart AH, Abraham C, Regueiro M, Griffiths A, Dassopoulos T, Bitton A, Yang H, Targan S, Datta LW, Kistner EO, Schumm LP, Lee AT, Gregersen PK, Barmada MM, Rotter JI, Nicolae DL, Cho JH . A genome-wide association study identifies IL23R as an inflammatory bowel disease gene. Science, 2006,314(5804):1461-1463. |
| [5] | Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME . Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics, 2001,157(4):1819-1829. |
| [6] | Tan C, Bian C, Yang D, Li N, Wu ZF, Hu XX, Li MZ . Application of genomic selection in farm animal breeding. Hereditas(Beijing), 2017,39(11):1033-1045. |
| [6] | 谈成, 边成, 杨达, 李宁, 吴珍芳, 胡晓湘, 李明洲 . 基因组选择技术在农业动物育种中的应用. 遗传, 2017,39(11):1033-1045. |
| [7] | He J, Qian CS, Richard T Jr., Bauck S, Wu XL . Estimating genomic breed composition of individual animals using selected SNPs. Hereditas(Beijing), 2018,40(4):305-314. |
| [7] | 何俊, 钱长嵩, Richard G.Tait Jr., Stewart Bauck, 吴晓林 . SNP芯片数据估计动物个体基因组品种构成的方法及应用. 遗传, 2018,40(4):305-314. |
| [8] | vanEenennaam AL, Weigel KA, Young AE, Cleveland MA, Dekkers JCM . Applied animal genomics: results from the field. Annu Rev AnimBiosci, 2013,2(2):105-139. |
| [9] | Wiggans GR, Cole JB, Hubbard SM, Sonstegard TS . Genomic selection in dairy cattle: the USDA experience. Annu Rev AnimBiosci, 2017,5(1):309-327. |
| [10] | Akdemir D, Sánchez JI . Efficient breeding by genomic mating. Front Genet, 2016,7:210. |
| [11] | Marchini J, Howie B . Genotype imputation for genome-wide association studies. Nat Rev Genet, 2010,11(7):499-511. |
| [12] | He S, Ding XD, Zhang Q . Comparison of different genotype imputation methods. Chin J AnimSci, 2013,49(23):95-100. |