Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35046990›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021

Comparison of Genotype Imputation for SNP Array and Low-Coverage Whole-Genome Sequencing Data.

Tianyu Deng, Pengfei Zhang, Dorian Garrick, Huijiang Gao, Lixian Wang, Fuping Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Genomic Landscape and Prediction of Udder Traits in Saanen Dairy Goats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tianyu DengInstitute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Pengfei ZhangInstitute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Dorian GarrickA. L. Rae Centre of Genetics and Breeding, Massey University, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Huijiang GaoInstitute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Lixian WangInstitute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Fuping ZhaoInstitute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genotype imputation is the term used to describe the process of inferring unobserved genotypes in a sample of individuals. It is a key step prior to a genome-wide association study (GWAS) or genomic prediction. The imputation accuracy will directly influence the results from subsequent analyses. In this simulation-based study, we investigate the accuracy of genotype imputation in relation to some factors characterizing SNP chip or low-coverage whole-genome sequencing (LCWGS) data. The factors included the imputation reference population size, the proportion of target markers /SNP density, the genetic relationship (distance) between the target population and the reference population, and the imputation method. Simulations of genotypes were based on coalescence theory accounting for the demographic history of pigs. A population of simulated founders diverged to produce four separate but related populations of descendants. The genomic data of 20,000 individuals were simulated for a 10-Mb chromosome fragment. Our results showed that the proportion of target markers or SNP density was the most critical factor affecting imputation accuracy under all imputation situations. Compared with Minimac4, Beagle5.1 reproduced higher-accuracy imputed data in most cases, more notably when imputing from the LCWGS data. Compared with SNP chip data, LCWGS provided more accurate genotype imputation. Our findings provided a relatively comprehensive insight into the accuracy of genotype imputation in a realistic population of domestic animals.

Indexed as

genotype imputationimputation accuracyreference population sizesequencingSNP chipSNP density

Identifiers

PMID35046990
PMCPMC8762119

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.