Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26282557›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2015

Accuracy of imputation using the most common sires as reference population in layer chickens.

Marzieh Heidaritabar, Mario P L Calus, Addie Vereijken, Martien A M Groenen, John W M Bastiaansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Genotype imputation in the domestic dog.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2016
    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

5 authors.

Marzieh HeidaritabarAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands. marzieh.heidaritabar@wur.nl.
Mario P L CalusAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands. mario.calus@wur.nl.
Addie VereijkenHendrix Genetics Research, Technology and Services B.V., P.O. Box 114, 5830 AC, Boxmeer, the Netherlands. Addie.Vereijken@hendrix-genetics.com.
Martien A M GroenenAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands. martien.groenen@wur.nl.
John W M BastiaansenAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands. john.bastiaansen@wur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenotype imputation has become a standard practice in modern genetic research to increase genome coverage and improve the accuracy of genomic selection (GS) and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We assessed accuracies of imputing 60K genotype data from lower density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels using a small set of the most common sires in a population of 2140 white layer chickens. Several factors affecting imputation accuracy were investigated, including the size of the reference population, the level of the relationship between the reference and validation populations, and minor allele frequency (MAF) of the SNP being imputed.

resultsThe accuracy of imputation was assessed with different scenarios using 22 and 62 carefully selected reference animals (Ref(22) and Ref(62)). Animal-specific imputation accuracy corrected for gene content was moderate on average (~ 0.80) in most scenarios and low in the 3K to 60K scenario. Maximum average accuracies were 0.90 and 0.93 for the most favourable scenario for Ref(22) and Ref(62) respectively, when SNPs were masked independent of their MAF. SNPs with low MAF were more difficult to impute, and the larger reference population considerably improved the imputation accuracy for these rare SNPs. When Ref(22) was used for imputation, the average imputation accuracy decreased by 0.04 when validation population was two instead of one generation away from the reference and increased again by 0.05 when validation was three generations away. Selecting the reference animals from the most common sires, compared with random animals from the population, considerably improved imputation accuracy for low MAF SNPs, but gave only limited improvement for other MAF classes. The allelic R(2) measure from Beagle software was found to be a good predictor of imputation reliability (correlation ~ 0.8) when the density of validation panel was very low (3K) and the MAF of the SNP and the size of the reference population were not extremely small.

conclusionsEven with a very small number of animals in the reference population, reasonable accuracy of imputation can be achieved. Selecting a set of the most common sires, rather than selecting random animals for the reference population, improves the imputation accuracy of rare alleles, which may be a benefit when imputing with whole genome re-sequencing data.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeAllelesAnimalsChickensGene FrequencyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26282557
PMCPMC4539854

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.