Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980139›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2021

How imputation can mitigate SNP ascertainment Bias.

Johannes Geibel, Christian Reimer, Torsten Pook, Steffen Weigend, Annett Weigend, Henner Simianer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Selection signatures for heat tolerance in Brazilian horse breeds.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Johannes GeibelDepartment of Animal Sciences, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. johannes.geibel@uni-goettingen.de.
Christian ReimerDepartment of Animal Sciences, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Torsten PookDepartment of Animal Sciences, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Steffen WeigendCenter for Integrated Breeding Research, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Annett WeigendInstitute of Farm Animal Genetics, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Höltystrasse 10, 31535, Neustadt-Mariensee, Germany.
Henner SimianerDepartment of Animal Sciences, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation genetic studies based on genotyped single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are influenced by a non-random selection of the SNPs included in the used genotyping arrays. The resulting bias in the estimation of allele frequency spectra and population genetics parameters like heterozygosity and genetic distances relative to whole genome sequencing (WGS) data is known as SNP ascertainment bias. Full correction for this bias requires detailed knowledge of the array design process, which is often not available in practice. This study suggests an alternative approach to mitigate ascertainment bias of a large set of genotyped individuals by using information of a small set of sequenced individuals via imputation without the need for prior knowledge on the array design.

resultsThe strategy was first tested by simulating additional ascertainment bias with a set of 1566 chickens from 74 populations that were genotyped for the positions of the Affymetrix Axiom™ 580 k Genome-Wide Chicken Array. Imputation accuracy was shown to be consistently higher for populations used for SNP discovery during the simulated array design process. Reference sets of at least one individual per population in the study set led to a strong correction of ascertainment bias for estimates of expected and observed heterozygosity, Wright's Fixation Index and Nei's Standard Genetic Distance. In contrast, unbalanced reference sets (overrepresentation of populations compared to the study set) introduced a new bias towards the reference populations. Finally, the array genotypes were imputed to WGS by utilization of reference sets of 74 individuals (one per population) to 98 individuals (additional commercial chickens) and compared with a mixture of individually and pooled sequenced populations. The imputation reduced the slope between heterozygosity estimates of array data and WGS data from 1.94 to 1.26 when using the smaller balanced reference panel and to 1.44 when using the larger but unbalanced reference panel. This generally supported the results from simulation but was less favorable, advocating for a larger reference panel when imputing to WGS.

conclusionsThe results highlight the potential of using imputation for mitigation of SNP ascertainment bias but also underline the need for unbiased reference sets.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsChickensGene FrequencyGenotypeChickensImputationPopulation geneticsSNP ascertainment bias

Identifiers

PMID33980139
PMCPMC8114708

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.