Dataset Information

Genotyping error detection in samples of unrelated individuals without replicate genotyping.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Identifying genotyping errors is an important issue in genetic research, yet it has been relatively less studied in samples consisting of unrelated individuals. In this article, we consider several models of genotyping errors, which were originally proposed for pedigree data, for unrelated population samples with single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotype data. The mathematical constraints are investigated for detecting genotyping errors without resampling replicates or genotyping relatives.

Methods

For the various proposed genotyping error models, we unveil the conditions under which the parameters are identifiable. These results are verified through applications to simulated and real SNP data.

Results

We show that, with constraints, two particular models provide both identifiable error rate and allele frequencies of an SNP for unrelated population data. The simulation study shows that these two models present unbiased estimates for the allele frequencies. One of the models also gives an unbiased estimate for the genotyping error rate.

Conclusion

While the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test can be used to detect genotyping errors, a key advantage of these models is the explicit estimates of genotyping error rates and allele frequencies. This work may help researchers to estimate error rates and to use the estimates in their analysis to increase power and decrease bias, without the extra work of genotyping family members or replicates.

SUBMITTER: Liu N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2782542 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObservations of recurrent somatic mutations in tumors have led to identification and definition of signaling and other pathways that are important for cancer progression and therapeutic targeting. As tumor cells contain both an individual's inherited genetic variants and somatic mutations, challenges arise in distinguishing these events in massively parallel sequencing datasets. Typically, both a tumor sample and a "normal" sample from the same individual are sequenced and compared; variants observed only in the tumor are considered to be somatic mutations. However, this approach requires two samples for each individual.ResultsWe evaluate a method of detecting somatic mutations in tumor samples for which only a subset of normal samples are available. We describe tuning of the method for detection of mutations in tumors, filtering to remove inherited variants, and comparison of detected mutations to several matched tumor/normal analysis methods. Filtering steps include the use of population variation datasets to remove inherited variants as well a subset of normal samples to remove technical artifacts. We then directly compare mutation detection with tumor-only and tumor-normal approaches using the same sets of samples. Comparisons are performed using an internal targeted gene sequencing dataset (n = 3380) as well as whole exome sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas project (n = 250). Tumor-only mutation detection shows similar recall (43-60%) but lesser precision (20-21%) to current matched tumor/normal approaches (recall 43-73%, precision 30-82%) when compared to a "gold-standard" tumor/normal approach. The inclusion of a small pool of normal samples improves precision, although many variants are still uniquely detected in the tumor-only analysis.ConclusionsA detailed method for somatic mutation detection without matched normal samples enables study of larger numbers of tumor samples, as well as tumor samples for which a matched normal is not available. As sensitivity/recall is similar to tumor/normal mutation detection but precision is lower, tumor-only detection is more appropriate for classification of samples based on known mutations. Although matched tumor-normal analysis is preferred due to higher precision, we demonstrate that mutation detection without matched normal samples is possible for certain applications.

Project description:Objective: Departure from Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) may occur due to a variety of causes, including purifying selection, inbreeding, population substructure, copy number variation or genotyping error. We searched for specific characteristics of HWE-departure due to genotyping error. Methods: Genotypes of a random set of genetic variants were obtained from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database. Variants with <80% successful genotypes or with minor allele frequency (MAF) <1% were excluded. HWE-departure (d-HWE) was considered significant at p < 10E-05 and classified as d-HWE with loss of heterozygosity (LoH d-HWE) or d-HWE with excess heterozygosity (gain of heterozygosity: GoH d-HWE). Missing genotypes, variant type (single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) vs. insertion/deletion); MAF, standard deviation (SD) of MAF across populations (MAF-SD) and copy number variation were evaluated for association with HWE-departure. Results: The study sample comprised 3,204 genotype distributions. HWE-departure was observed in 134 variants: LoH d-HWE in 41 (1.3%), GoH d-HWE in 93 (2.9%) variants. LoH d-HWE was more likely in variants located within deletion polymorphisms (p < 0.001) and in variants with higher MAF-SD (p = 0.0077). GoH d-HWE was associated with low genotyping rate, with variants of insertion/deletion type and with high MAF (all at p < 0.001). In a sub-sample of 2,196 variants with genotyping rate >98%, LoH d-HWE was found in 29 (1.3%) variants, but no GoH d-HWE was detected. The findings of the non-random distribution of HWE-violating SNPs along the chromosome, the association with common deletion polymorphisms and indel-variant type, and the finding of excess heterozygotes in genomic regions that are prone to cross-hybridization were confirmed in a large sample of short variants from the 1,000 Genomes Project. Conclusions: We differentiated between two types of HWE-departure. GoH d-HWE was suggestive for genotyping error. LoH d-HWE, on the contrary, pointed to natural variabilities such as population substructure or common deletion polymorphisms.