Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23472072›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Assessing the impact of differential genotyping errors on rare variant tests of association.

Morgan Mayer-Jochimsen, Shannon Fast, Nathan L Tintle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A POWERFUL METHOD FOR INCLUDING GENOTYPE UNCERTAINTY IN TESTS OF HARDY-WEINBERG EQUILIBRIUM.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2017
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Morgan Mayer-JochimsenDepartment of Mathematics, Scripps College, Claremont, California, USA.
Shannon Fast
Nathan L Tintle

Funding

Analyzing the behavior and interpreting the results of gene based tests of rare variant associationR15HG006915 · NHGRI · DORDT COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2012 to 2020
$1.3M
Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Sample Designs for Genetic AssocR15HG004543 · NHGRI · HOPE COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2008 to 2011
$288k
NHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG004543NHGRI NIH HHS R15HG004543NHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG006915NHGRI NIH HHS R15HG006915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genotyping errors are well-known to impact the power and type I error rate in single marker tests of association. Genotyping errors that happen according to the same process in cases and controls are known as non-differential genotyping errors, whereas genotyping errors that occur with different processes in the cases and controls are known as differential genotype errors. For single marker tests, non-differential genotyping errors reduce power, while differential genotyping errors increase the type I error rate. However, little is known about the behavior of the new generation of rare variant tests of association in the presence of genotyping errors. In this manuscript we use a comprehensive simulation study to explore the effects of numerous factors on the type I error rate of rare variant tests of association in the presence of differential genotyping error. We find that increased sample size, decreased minor allele frequency, and an increased number of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) included in the test all increase the type I error rate in the presence of differential genotyping errors. We also find that the greater the relative difference in case-control genotyping error rates the larger the type I error rate. Lastly, as is the case for single marker tests, genotyping errors classifying the common homozygote as the heterozygote inflate the type I error rate significantly more than errors classifying the heterozygote as the common homozygote. In general, our findings are in line with results from single marker tests. To ensure that type I error inflation does not occur when analyzing next-generation sequencing data careful consideration of study design (e.g. use of randomization), caution in meta-analysis and using publicly available controls, and the use of standard quality control metrics is critical.

Indexed as

GenotypeGenotyping TechniquesModels, GeneticAlgorithmsBayes TheoremCase-Control StudiesGene FrequencyGenetic MarkersGenetic VariationHaplotypesHomozygoteHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID23472072
PMCPMC3589406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.