Dataset Information

Evaluating the influence of quality control decisions and software algorithms on SNP calling for the affymetrix 6.0 SNP array platform.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Our goal was to evaluate the influence of quality control (QC) decisions using two genotype calling algorithms, CRLMM and Birdseed, designed for the Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0.

Methods

Various QC options were tried using the two algorithms and comparisons were made on subject and call rate and on association results using two data sets.

Results

For Birdseed, we recommend using the contrast QC instead of QC call rate for sample QC. For CRLMM, we recommend using the signal-to-noise rate ?4 for sample QC and a posterior probability of 90% for genotype accuracy. For both algorithms, we recommend calling the genotype separately for each plate, and dropping SNPs with a lower call rate (<95%) before evaluating samples with lower call rates. To investigate whether the genotype calls from the two algorithms impacted the genome-wide association results, we performed association analysis using data from the GENOA cohort; we observed that the number of significant SNPs were similar using either CRLMM or Birdseed.

Conclusions

Using our suggested workflow both algorithms performed similarly; however, fewer samples were removed and CRLMM took half the time to run our 854 study samples (4.2 h) compared to Birdseed (8.4 h).

SUBMITTER: de Andrade M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3136375 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the influence of quality control decisions and software algorithms on SNP calling for the affymetrix 6.0 SNP array platform.

de Andrade Mariza M Atkinson Elizabeth J EJ Bamlet William R WR Matsumoto Martha E ME Maharjan Sooraj S Slager Susan L SL Vachon Celine M CM Cunningham Julie M JM Kardia Sharon L R SL

Human heredity 20110702 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Our goal was to evaluate the influence of quality control (QC) decisions using two genotype calling algorithms, CRLMM and Birdseed, designed for the Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0.<h4>Methods</h4>Various QC options were tried using the two algorithms and comparisons were made on subject and call rate and on association results using two data sets.<h4>Results</h4>For Birdseed, we recommend using the contrast QC instead of QC call rate for sample QC. For CRLMM, we recommend using the s ...[more]

PMID: 21734406

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCopy number data are routinely being extracted from genome-wide association study chips using a variety of software. We empirically evaluated and compared four freely-available software packages designed for Affymetrix SNP chips to estimate copy number: Affymetrix Power Tools (APT), Aroma.Affymetrix, PennCNV and CRLMM. Our evaluation used 1,418 GENOA samples that were genotyped on the Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0. We compared bias and variance in the locus-level copy number data, the concordance amongst regions of copy number gains/deletions and the false-positive rate amongst deleted segments.ResultsAPT had median locus-level copy numbers closest to a value of two, whereas PennCNV and Aroma.Affymetrix had the smallest variability associated with the median copy number. Of those evaluated, only PennCNV provides copy number specific quality-control metrics and identified 136 poor CNV samples. Regions of copy number variation (CNV) were detected using the hidden Markov models provided within PennCNV and CRLMM/VanillaIce. PennCNV detected more CNVs than CRLMM/VanillaIce; the median number of CNVs detected per sample was 39 and 30, respectively. PennCNV detected most of the regions that CRLMM/VanillaIce did as well as additional CNV regions. The median concordance between PennCNV and CRLMM/VanillaIce was 47.9% for duplications and 51.5% for deletions. The estimated false-positive rate associated with deletions was similar for PennCNV and CRLMM/VanillaIce.ConclusionsIf the objective is to perform statistical tests on the locus-level copy number data, our empirical results suggest that PennCNV or Aroma.Affymetrix is optimal. If the objective is to perform statistical tests on the summarized segmented data then PennCNV would be preferred over CRLMM/VanillaIce. Specifically, PennCNV allows the analyst to estimate locus-level copy number, perform segmentation and evaluate CNV-specific quality-control metrics within a single software package. PennCNV has relatively small bias, small variability and detects more regions while maintaining a similar estimated false-positive rate as CRLMM/VanillaIce. More generally, we advocate that software developers need to provide guidance with respect to evaluating and choosing optimal settings in order to obtain optimal results for an individual dataset. Until such guidance exists, we recommend trying multiple algorithms, evaluating concordance/discordance and subsequently consider the union of regions for downstream association tests.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) using array-based genotyping technology are widely used to identify genetic loci associated with complex diseases or other phenotypes. The costs of GWAS projects based on individual genotyping are still comparatively high and increase with the size of study populations. Genotyping using pooled DNA samples, as also being referred as to allelotyping approach, offers an alternative at affordable costs. In the present study, data from 100 DNA samples individually genotyped with the Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 were used to estimate the error of the pooling approach by comparing the results with those obtained using the same array type but DNA pools each composed of 50 of the same samples. Newly developed and established methods for signal intensity correction were applied. Furthermore, the relative allele intensity signals (RAS) obtained by allelotyping were compared to the corresponding values derived from individual genotyping. Similarly, differences in RAS values between pools were determined and compared. RESULTS: Regardless of the intensity correction method applied, the pooling-specific error of the pool intensity values was larger for single pools than for the comparison of the intensity values of two pools, which reflects the scenario of a case-control study. Using 50 pooled samples and analyzing 10,000 SNPs with a minor allele frequency of >1% and applying the best correction method for the corresponding type of comparison, the 90% quantile (median) of the pooling-specific absolute error of the RAS values for single sub-pools and the SNP-specific difference in allele frequency comparing two pools was 0.064 (0.026) and 0.056 (0.021), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Correction of the RAS values reduced the error of the RAS values when analyzing single pool intensities. We developed a new correction method with high accuracy but low computational costs. Correction of RAS, however, only marginally reduced the error of true differences between two sample groups and those obtained by allelotyping. Exclusion of SNPs with a minor allele frequency of ? 1% notably reduced the pooling-specific error. Our findings allow for improving the estimation of the pooling-specific error and may help in designing allelotyping studies using the Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the influence of quality control decisions and software algorithms on SNP calling for the affymetrix 6.0 SNP array platform.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluating the influence of quality control decisions and software algorithms on SNP calling for the affymetrix 6.0 SNP array platform.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets