ArticleScientific reports2016
The impact of genotype calling errors on family-based studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of genotype-calling methodologies on genome-wide association and genomic prediction in polyploids.The plant genome · 2023Article
- Inferring the mode and strength of ongoing selection.Genome research · 2023Article
- A pedigree-based cohort to study the genetic risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases: study design, baseline characteristics and preliminary results.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Establishing analytical validity of BeadChip array genotype data by comparison to whole-genome sequence and standard benchmark datasets.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- Distinct error rates for reference and nonreference genotypes estimated by pedigree analysis.Genetics · 2021Article
- Quantitative trait locus mapping analysis of multiple traits when using genotype data with potential errors.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Allele balance bias identifies systematic genotyping errors and false disease associations.Human mutation · 2019Article
- Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Family-based sequencing studies have unique advantages in enriching rare variants, controlling population stratification, and improving genotype calling. Standard genotype calling algorithms are less likely to call rare variants correctly, often mistakenly calling heterozygotes as reference homozygotes. The consequences of such non-random errors on association tests for rare variants are unclear, particularly in transmission-based tests. In this study, we investigated the impact of genotyping errors on rare variant association tests of family-based sequence data. We performed a comprehensive analysis to study how genotype calling errors affect type I error and statistical power of transmission-based association tests using a variety of realistic parameters in family-based sequencing studies. In simulation studies, we found that biased genotype calling errors yielded not only an inflation of type I error but also a power loss of association tests. We further confirmed our observation using exome sequence data from an autism project. We concluded that non-symmetric genotype calling errors need careful consideration in the analysis of family-based sequence data and we provided practical guidance on ameliorating the test bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.