Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26830693›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Impact of imputation methods on the amount of genetic variation captured by a single-nucleotide polymorphism panel in soybeans.

A Xavier, William M Muir, Katy M Rainey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Imputation of 3 million SNPs in the Arabidopsis regional mapping population.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Walking through the statistical black boxes of plant breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2016
    Review
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

A XavierDepartment of Agronomy, Purdue University, Lilly Hall of Life Sciences, 915 W. State St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907, USA. xaviera@purdue.edu.
William M MuirDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, Lilly Hall of Life Sciences, 915 W. State St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907, USA. bmuir@purdue.edu.
Katy M RaineyDepartment of Agronomy, Purdue University, Lilly Hall of Life Sciences, 915 W. State St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907, USA. krainey@purdue.edu.
Purdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccess in genome-wide association studies and marker-assisted selection depends on good phenotypic and genotypic data. The more complete this data is, the more powerful will be the results of analysis. Nevertheless, there are next-generation technologies that seek to provide genotypic information in spite of great proportions of missing data. The procedures these technologies use to impute genetic data, therefore, greatly affect downstream analyses. This study aims to (1) compare the genetic variance in a single-nucleotide polymorphism panel of soybean with missing data imputed using various methods, (2) evaluate the imputation accuracy and post-imputation quality associated with these methods, and (3) evaluate the impact of imputation method on heritability and the accuracy of genome-wide prediction of soybean traits. The imputation methods we evaluated were as follows: multivariate mixed model, hidden Markov model, logical algorithm, k-nearest neighbor, single value decomposition, and random forest. We used raw genotypes from the SoyNAM project and the following phenotypes: plant height, days to maturity, grain yield, and seed protein composition.

resultsWe propose an imputation method based on multivariate mixed models using pedigree information. Our methods comparison indicate that heritability of traits can be affected by the imputation method. Genotypes with missing values imputed with methods that make use of genealogic information can favor genetic analysis of highly polygenic traits, but not genome-wide prediction accuracy. The genotypic matrix captured the highest amount of genetic variance when missing loci were imputed by the method proposed in this paper.

conclusionsWe concluded that hidden Markov models and random forest imputation are more suitable to studies that aim analyses of highly heritable traits while pedigree-based methods can be used to best analyze traits with low heritability. Despite the notable contribution to heritability, advantages in genomic prediction were not observed by changing the imputation method. We identified significant differences across imputation methods in a dataset missing 20 % of the genotypic values. It means that genotypic data from genotyping technologies that provide a high proportion of missing values, such as GBS, should be handled carefully because the imputation method will impact downstream analysis.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantModels, GeneticAlgorithmsGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsGlycine maxPedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID26830693
PMCPMC4736474
OpenAlexW2263216648

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.