Dataset Information

Coverage and efficiency in current SNP chips.

ABSTRACT: To answer the question as to which commercial high-density SNP chip covers most of the human genome given a fixed budget, we compared the performance of 12 chips of different sizes released by Affymetrix and Illumina for the European, Asian, and African populations. These include Affymetrix' relatively new population-optimized arrays, whose SNP sets are each tailored toward a specific ethnicity. Our evaluation of the chips included the use of two measures, efficiency and cost-benefit ratio, which we developed as supplements to genetic coverage. Unlike coverage, these measures factor in the price of a chip or its substitute size (number of SNPs on chip), allowing comparisons to be drawn between differently priced chips. In this fashion, we identified the Affymetrix population-optimized arrays as offering the most cost-effective coverage for the Asian and African population. For the European population, we established the Illumina Human Omni 2.5-8 as the preferred choice. Interestingly, the Affymetrix chip tailored toward an Eastern Asian subpopulation performed well for all three populations investigated. However, our coverage estimates calculated for all chips proved much lower than those advertised by the producers. All our analyses were based on the 1000 Genome Project as reference population.

SUBMITTER: Ha NT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4135415 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Coverage and efficiency in current SNP chips.

Ha Ngoc-Thuy NT Freytag Saskia S Bickeboeller Heike H

European journal of human genetics : EJHG 20140122 9

To answer the question as to which commercial high-density SNP chip covers most of the human genome given a fixed budget, we compared the performance of 12 chips of different sizes released by Affymetrix and Illumina for the European, Asian, and African populations. These include Affymetrix' relatively new population-optimized arrays, whose SNP sets are each tailored toward a specific ethnicity. Our evaluation of the chips included the use of two measures, efficiency and cost-benefit ratio, whic ...[more]

PMID: 24448550

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGenetic markers can be used to identify and verify the origin of individuals. Motivation for the inference of ancestry ranges from conservation genetics to forensic analysis. High density assays featuring Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) markers can be exploited to create a reduced panel containing the most informative markers for these purposes. The objectives of this study were to evaluate methods of marker selection and determine the minimum number of markers from the BovineSNP50 BeadChip required to verify the origin of individuals in European cattle breeds. Delta, Wright's FST, Weir & Cockerham's FST and PCA methods for population differentiation were compared. The level of informativeness of each SNP was estimated from the breed specific allele frequencies. Individual assignment analysis was performed using the ranked informative markers. Stringency levels were applied by log-likelihood ratio to assess the confidence of the assignment test.ResultsA 95% assignment success rate for the 384 individually genotyped animals was achieved with <80, <100, <140 and <200 SNP markers (with increasing stringency threshold levels) across all the examined methods for marker selection. No further gain in power of assignment was achieved by sampling in excess of 200 SNP markers. The marker selection method that required the lowest number of SNP markers to verify the animal's breed origin was Wright's FST (60 to 140 SNPs depending on the chosen degree of confidence). Certain breeds required fewer markers (<100) to achieve 100% assignment success. In contrast, closely related breeds require more markers (~200) to achieve>95% assignment success. The power of assignment success, and therefore the number of SNP markers required, is dependent on the levels of genetic heterogeneity and pool of samples considered.ConclusionsWhile all SNP selection methods produced marker panels capable of breed identification, the power of assignment varied markedly among analysis methods. Thus, with effective exploration of available high density genetic markers, a diagnostic panel of highly informative markers can be produced.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether the sensitivity and specificity of SNP chips are adequate for detecting rare pathogenic variants in a clinically unselected population.DesignRetrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation.Participants49 908 people recruited to the UK Biobank with SNP chip and next generation sequencing data, and an additional 21 people who purchased consumer genetic tests and shared their data online via the Personal Genome Project.Main outcome measuresGenotyping (that is, identification of the correct DNA base at a specific genomic location) using SNP chips versus sequencing, with results split by frequency of that genotype in the population. Rare pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were selected as an exemplar for detailed analysis of clinically actionable variants in the UK Biobank, and BRCA related cancers (breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic) were assessed in participants through use of cancer registry data.ResultsOverall, genotyping using SNP chips performed well compared with sequencing; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were all above 99% for 108 574 common variants directly genotyped on the SNP chips and sequenced in the UK Biobank. However, the likelihood of a true positive result decreased dramatically with decreasing variant frequency; for variants that are very rare in the population, with a frequency below 0.001% in UK Biobank, the positive predictive value was very low and only 16% of 4757 heterozygous genotypes from the SNP chips were confirmed with sequencing data. Results were similar for SNP chip data from the Personal Genome Project, and 20/21 individuals analysed had at least one false positive rare pathogenic variant that had been incorrectly genotyped. For pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are individually very rare, the overall performance metrics for the SNP chips versus sequencing in the UK Biobank were: sensitivity 34.6%, specificity 98.3%, positive predictive value 4.2%, and negative predictive value 99.9%. Rates of BRCA related cancers in UK Biobank participants with a positive SNP chip result were similar to those for age matched controls (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71) because the vast majority of variants were false positives, whereas sequence positive participants had a significantly increased risk (odds ratio 4.05, 2.72 to 6.03).ConclusionsSNP chips are extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants and should not be used to guide health decisions without validation.

Project description:BackgroundDNA extracted from historical samples is an important resource for understanding genetic consequences of anthropogenic influences and long-term environmental change. However, such samples generally yield DNA of a lower amount and quality, and the extent to which DNA degradation affects SNP genotyping success and allele frequency estimation is not well understood. We conducted high density SNP genotyping and allele frequency estimation in both individual DNA samples and pooled DNA samples extracted from dried Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) scales stored at room temperature for up to 35 years, and assessed genotyping success, repeatability and accuracy of allele frequency estimation using a high density SNP genotyping array.ResultsIn individual DNA samples, genotyping success and repeatability was very high (> 0.973 and > 0.998, respectively) in samples stored for up to 35 years; both increased with the proportion of DNA of fragment size > 1000 bp. In pooled DNA samples, allele frequency estimation was highly repeatable (Repeatability = 0.986) and highly correlated with empirical allele frequency measures (Mean Adjusted R2 = 0.991); allele frequency could be accurately estimated in > 95% of pooled DNA samples with a reference group of at least 30 individuals. SNPs located in polyploid regions of the genome were more sensitive to DNA degradation: older samples had lower genotyping success at these loci, and a larger reference panel of individuals was required to accurately estimate allele frequencies.ConclusionsSNP genotyping was highly successful in degraded DNA samples, paving the way for the use of degraded samples in SNP genotyping projects. DNA pooling provides the potential for large scale population genetic studies with fewer assays, provided enough reference individuals are also genotyped and DNA quality is properly assessed beforehand. We provide recommendations for future studies intending to conduct high-throughput SNP genotyping and allele frequency estimation in historical samples.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Many Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) calling programs have been developed to identify Single Nucleotide Variations (SNVs) in next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. However, low sequencing coverage presents challenges to accurate SNV identification, especially in single-sample data. Moreover, commonly used SNP calling programs usually include several metrics in their output files for each potential SNP. These metrics are highly correlated in complex patterns, making it extremely difficult to select SNPs for further experimental validations. RESULTS: To explore solutions to the above challenges, we compare the performance of four SNP calling algorithm, SOAPsnp, Atlas-SNP2, SAMtools, and GATK, in a low-coverage single-sample sequencing dataset. Without any post-output filtering, SOAPsnp calls more SNVs than the other programs since it has fewer internal filtering criteria. Atlas-SNP2 has stringent internal filtering criteria; thus it reports the least number of SNVs. The numbers of SNVs called by GATK and SAMtools fall between SOAPsnp and Atlas-SNP2. Moreover, we explore the values of key metrics related to SNVs' quality in each algorithm and use them as post-output filtering criteria to filter out low quality SNVs. Under different coverage cutoff values, we compare four algorithms and calculate the empirical positive calling rate and sensitivity. Our results show that: 1) the overall agreement of the four calling algorithms is low, especially in non-dbSNPs; 2) the agreement of the four algorithms is similar when using different coverage cutoffs, except that the non-dbSNPs agreement level tends to increase slightly with increasing coverage; 3) SOAPsnp, SAMtools, and GATK have a higher empirical calling rate for dbSNPs compared to non-dbSNPs; and 4) overall, GATK and Atlas-SNP2 have a relatively higher positive calling rate and sensitivity, but GATK calls more SNVs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the agreement between different calling algorithms is relatively low. Thus, more caution should be used in choosing algorithms, setting filtering parameters, and designing validation studies. For reliable SNV calling results, we recommend that users employ more than one algorithm and use metrics related to calling quality and coverage as filtering criteria.

Dataset Information

Coverage and efficiency in current SNP chips.

Publications

Coverage and efficiency in current SNP chips.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets