Genotyping error detection through tightly linked markers

The identification of genotyping errors is an important issue in mapping complex disease genes. Although it is common practice to genotype multiple markers in a candidate region in genetic studies, the potential benefit of jointly analyzing multiple markers to detect genotyping errors has not been investigated. In this article, we discuss genotyping error detections for a set of tightly linked markers in nuclear families, and the objective is to identify families likely to have genotyping errors at one or more markers. We make use of the fact that recombination is a very unlikely event among these markers. We first show that, with family trios, no extra information can be gained by jointly analyzing markers if no phase information is available, and error detection rates are usually low if Mendelian consistency is used as the only standard for checking errors. However, for nuclear families with more than one child, error detection rates can be greatly increased with the consideration of more markers. Error detection rates also increase with the number of children in each family. Because families displaying Mendelian consistency may still have genotyping errors, we calculate the probability that a family displaying Mendelian consistency has correct genotypes. These probabilities can help identify families that, although showing Mendelian consistency, may have genotyping errors. In addition, we examine the benefit of available haplotype frequencies in the general population on genotyping error detections. We show that both error detection rates and the probability that an observed family displaying Mendelian consistency has correct genotypes can be greatly increased when such additional information is available.     

Effect of genotyping error in model-free linkage analysis using microsatellite or single-nucleotide polymorphism marker maps

Errors while genotyping are inevitable and can reduce the power to detect linkage. However, does genotyping error have the same impact on linkage results for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and microsatellite (MS) marker maps? To evaluate this question we detected genotyping errors that are consistent with Mendelian inheritance using large changes in multipoint identity-by-descent sharing in neighboring markers. Only a small fraction of Mendelian consistent errors were detectable (e.g., 18% of MS and 2.4% of SNP genotyping errors). More SNP genotyping errors are Mendelian consistent compared to MS genotyping errors, so genotyping error may have a greater impact on linkage results using SNP marker maps. We also evaluated the effect of genotyping error on the power and type I error rate using simulated nuclear families with missing parents under 0, 0.14, and 2.8% genotyping error rates. In the presence of genotyping error, we found that the power to detect a true linkage signal was greater for SNP (75%) than MS (67%) marker maps, although there were also slightly more false-positive signals using SNP marker maps (5 compared with 3 for MS). Finally, we evaluated the usefulness of accounting for genotyping error in the SNP data using a likelihood-based approach, which restores some of the power that is lost when genotyping error is introduced.     

Inferring haplotypes from genotypes on a pedigree with mutations, genotyping errors and missing alleles

Inferring the haplotypes of the members of a pedigree from their genotypes has been extensively studied. However, most studies do not consider genotyping errors and de novo mutations. In this paper, we study how to infer haplotypes from genotype data that may contain genotyping errors, de novo mutations, and missing alleles. We assume that there are no recombinants in the genotype data, which is usually true for tightly linked markers. We introduce a combinatorial optimization problem, called haplotype configuration with mutations and errors (HCME), which calls for haplotype configurations consistent with the given genotypes that incur no recombinants and require the minimum number of mutations and errors. HCME is NP-hard. To solve the problem, we propose a heuristic algorithm, the core of which is an integer linear program (ILP) using the system of linear equations over Galois field GF(2). Our algorithm can detect and locate genotyping errors that cannot be detected by simply checking the Mendelian law of inheritance. The algorithm also offers error correction in genotypes/haplotypes rather than just detecting inconsistencies and deleting the involved loci. Our experimental results show that the algorithm can infer haplotypes with a very high accuracy and recover 65%-94% of genotyping errors depending on the pedigree topology.     

High concordance of bovine single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes generated using two independent genotyping strategies

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) represent the most common form of DNA sequence variation in mammalian livestock genomes. While the past decade has witnessed major advances in SNP genotyping technologies, genotyping errors caused, in part, by the biochemistry underlying the genotyping platform used, can occur. These errors can distort project results and conclusions and can result in incorrect decisions in animal management and breeding programs; hence, SNP genotype calls must be accurate and reliable. In this study, 263 Bos spp. samples were genotyped commercially for a total of 16 SNPs. Of the total possible 4,208 SNP genotypes, 4,179 SNP genotypes were generated, yielding a genotype call rate of 99.31% (standard deviation?±?0.93%). Between 110 and 263 samples were subsequently re-genotyped by us for all 16 markers using a custom-designed SNP genotyping platform, and of the possible 3,819 genotypes a total of 3,768 genotypes were generated (98.70% genotype call rate, SD?±?1.89%). A total of 3,744 duplicate genotypes were generated for both genotyping platforms, and comparison of the genotype calls for both methods revealed 3,741 concordant SNP genotype call rates (99.92% SNP genotype concordance rate). These data indicate that both genotyping methods used can provide livestock geneticists with reliable, reproducible SNP genotypic data for in-depth statistical analysis.     

High Concordance of Bovine Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Genotypes Generated Using Two Independent Genotyping Strategies

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) represent the most common form of DNA sequence variation in mammalian livestock genomes. While the past decade has witnessed major advances in SNP genotyping technologies, genotyping errors caused, in part, by the biochemistry underlying the genotyping platform used, can occur. These errors can distort project results and conclusions and can result in incorrect decisions in animal management and breeding programs; hence, SNP genotype calls must be accurate and reliable. In this study, 263 Bos spp. samples were genotyped commercially for a total of 16 SNPs. Of the total possible 4,208 SNP genotypes, 4,179 SNP genotypes were generated, yielding a genotype call rate of 99.31% (standard deviation ± 0.93%). Between 110 and 263 samples were subsequently re-genotyped by us for all 16 markers using a custom-designed SNP genotyping platform, and of the possible 3,819 genotypes a total of 3,768 genotypes were generated (98.70% genotype call rate, SD ± 1.89%). A total of 3,744 duplicate genotypes were generated for both genotyping platforms, and comparison of the genotype calls for both methods revealed 3,741 concordant SNP genotype call rates (99.92% SNP genotype concordance rate). These data indicate that both genotyping methods used can provide livestock geneticists with reliable, reproducible SNP genotypic data for in-depth statistical analysis.     

Identifying marker typing incompatibilities in linkage analysis.

A common problem encountered in linkage analyses is that execution of the computer program is halted because of genotypes in the data that are inconsistent with Mendelian inheritance. Such inconsistencies may arise because of pedigree errors or errors in typing. In some cases, the source of the inconsistencies is easily identified by examining the pedigree. In others, the error is not obvious, and substantial time and effort are required to identify the responsible genotypes. We have developed two methods for automatically identifying those individuals whose genotypes are most likely the cause of the inconsistencies. First, we calculate the posterior probability of genotyping error for each member of the pedigree, given the marker data on all pedigree members and allowing anyone in the pedigree to have an error. Second, we identify those individuals whose genotypes could be solely responsible for the inconsistency in the pedigree. We illustrate these methods with two examples: one a pedigree error, the second a genotyping error. These methods have been implemented as a module of the pedigree analysis program package MENDEL.     

Estimating genotyping error rates from Mendelian errors in SNP array genotypes and their impact on inference

A simple method of inferring the genotyping error rate of SNP arrays and similar high-throughput genotyping methods from Mendelian errors is described. Application to genotypes from small families using the Affymetrix GeneChip Human Mapping 50 k Array indicates an error rate of about 0.1%, and this rate can be reduced by increasing the quality criterion for calls, though at the cost of a reduced genotype call rate, which limits the benefit available. Simulated data are used to show that the number of SNPs on this array is sufficient for such a low error rate to have little impact on identical by descent-based inference for disease linkage in sib-pair studies.     

Probability of Detection of Genotyping Errors and Mutations as Inheritance Inconsistencies in Nuclear-Family Data

Gene-mapping studies routinely rely on checking for Mendelian transmission of marker alleles in a pedigree, as a means of screening for genotyping errors and mutations, with the implicit assumption that, if a pedigree is consistent with Mendel's laws of inheritance, then there are no genotyping errors. However, the occurrence of inheritance inconsistencies alone is an inadequate measure of the number of genotyping errors, since the rate of occurrence depends on the number and relationships of genotyped pedigree members, the type of errors, and the distribution of marker-allele frequencies. In this article, we calculate the expected probability of detection of a genotyping error or mutation as an inheritance inconsistency in nuclear-family data, as a function of both the number of genotyped parents and offspring and the marker-allele frequency distribution. Through computer simulation, we explore the sensitivity of our analytic calculations to the underlying error model. Under a random-allele-error model, we find that detection rates are 51%-77% for multiallelic markers and 13%-75% for biallelic markers; detection rates are generally lower when the error occurs in a parent than in an offspring, unless a large number of offspring are genotyped. Errors are especially difficult to detect for biallelic markers with equally frequent alleles, even when both parents are genotyped; in this case, the maximum detection rate is 34% for four-person nuclear families. Error detection in families in which parents are not genotyped is limited, even with multiallelic markers. Given these results, we recommend that additional error checking (e.g., on the basis of multipoint analysis) be performed, beyond routine checking for Mendelian consistency. Furthermore, our results permit assessment of the plausibility of an observed number of inheritance inconsistencies for a family, allowing the detection of likely pedigree-rather than genotyping-errors in the early stages of a genome scan. Such early assessments are valuable in either the targeting of families for resampling or discontinued genotyping.     

PedCheck: a program for identification of genotype incompatibilities in linkage analysis.

Prior to performance of linkage analysis, elimination of all Mendelian inconsistencies in the pedigree data is essential. Often, identification of erroneous genotypes by visual inspection can be very difficult and time consuming. In fact, sometimes the errors are not recognized until the stage of running linkage-analysis software. The effort then required to find the erroneous genotypes and to cross-reference pedigree and marker data that may have been recoded and renumbered can be not only tedious but also quite daunting, in the case of very large pedigrees. We have implemented four error-checking algorithms in a new computer program, PedCheck, which will assist researchers in identifying all Mendelian inconsistencies in pedigree data and will provide them with useful and detailed diagnostic information to help resolve the errors. Our program, which uses many of the algorithms implemented in VITESSE, handles large data sets quickly and efficiently, accepts a variety of input formats, and offers various error-checking algorithms that match the subtlety of the pedigree error. These algorithms range from simple parent-offspring-compatibility checks to a single-locus likelihood-based statistic that identifies and ranks the individuals most likely to be in error. We use various real data sets to illustrate the power and effectiveness of our program.     

Comparative study of multipoint methods for genotype error detection

Several programs are currently available for the detection of genotyping error that may or may not be Mendelianly inconsistent. However, no systematic study exists that evaluates their performance under varying pedigree structures and sizes, marker spacing, and allele frequencies. Our simulation study compares four multipoint methods: Merlin, Mendel4, SimWalk2, and Sibmed. We look at empirical thresholds, power, and false-positive rates on 7 small pedigree structures that included sibships with and without genotyped parents, and a three-generation pedigree, using 11 microsatellite markers with 3 different map spacings. Simulated data includes 5,000 replicates of each pedigree structure and marker map, with random genotyping errors in about 4% of the middle marker's genotypes. We found that the default thresholds used by these programs provide low power (47-72%). Power is improved more by adding genotyped siblings than by using more closely spaced markers. Some mistyping methods are sensitive to the frequencies of the observed alleles. Siblings of mistyped individuals have elevated false-positive rates, as do markers close to the mistyped marker. We conclude that thresholds should be decided based on the pedigree and marker data and that greater focus should be placed on modeling genotyping error when computing likelihoods, rather than on detecting and eliminating genotyping errors.     

Detection and Integration of Genotyping Errors in Statistical Genetics

Detection of genotyping errors and integration of such errors in statistical analysis are relatively neglected topics, given their importance in gene mapping. A few inopportunely placed errors, if ignored, can tremendously affect evidence for linkage. The present study takes a fresh look at the calculation of pedigree likelihoods in the presence of genotyping error. To accommodate genotyping error, we present extensions to the Lander-Green-Kruglyak deterministic algorithm for small pedigrees and to the Markov-chain Monte Carlo stochastic algorithm for large pedigrees. These extensions can accommodate a variety of error models and refrain from simplifying assumptions, such as allowing, at most, one error per pedigree. In principle, almost any statistical genetic analysis can be performed taking errors into account, without actually correcting or deleting suspect genotypes. Three examples illustrate the possibilities. These examples make use of the full pedigree data, multiple linked markers, and a prior error model. The first example is the estimation of genotyping error rates from pedigree data. The second-and currently most useful-example is the computation of posterior mistyping probabilities. These probabilities cover both Mendelian-consistent and Mendelian-inconsistent errors. The third example is the selection of the true pedigree structure connecting a group of people from among several competing pedigree structures. Paternity testing and twin zygosity testing are typical applications.     

megasat: automated inference of microsatellite genotypes from sequence data

megasat is software that enables genotyping of microsatellite loci using next‐generation sequencing data. Microsatellites are amplified in large multiplexes, and then sequenced in pooled amplicons. megasat reads sequence files and automatically scores microsatellite genotypes. It uses fuzzy matches to allow for sequencing errors and applies decision rules to account for amplification artefacts, including nontarget amplification products, replication slippage during PCR (amplification stutter) and differential amplification of alleles. An important feature of megasat is the generation of histograms of the length–frequency distributions of amplification products for each locus and each individual. These histograms, analogous to electropherograms traditionally used to score microsatellite genotypes, enable rapid evaluation and editing of automatically scored genotypes. megasat is written in Perl, runs on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux systems, and includes a simple graphical user interface. We demonstrate megasat using data from guppy, Poecilia reticulata. We genotype 1024 guppies at 43 microsatellites per run on an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. We evaluated the accuracy of automatically called genotypes using two methods, based on pedigree and repeat genotyping data, and obtained estimates of mean genotyping error rates of 0.021 and 0.012. In both estimates, three loci accounted for a disproportionate fraction of genotyping errors; conversely, 26 loci were scored with 0–1 detected error (error rate ≤0.007). Our results show that with appropriate selection of loci, automated genotyping of microsatellite loci can be achieved with very high throughput, low genotyping error and very low genotyping costs.     

True pedigree errors more frequent than apparent errors for single nucleotide polymorphisms

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are currently being developed for use in disequilibrium analyses. These SNPs consist of two alleles with varying degrees of polymorphism. A natural design for use with SNPs is the 'haplotype relative risk' sampling design in which a father, mother, and child are typed at an SNP locus. Given such a trio of genotypes, we ask: what is the probability that a pedigree error (a change from one allele to the other) at an SNP locus will be detected using only Mendel's laws as a check? We calculate the probability of detecting such errors for a hypothetical SNP locus with varying degrees of polymorphism and for various true error rates. For the sets of allele frequencies considered, we find that the detection rates range between 25 and 30%, the detection rate being lowest when the two alleles have equal frequencies and the highest when one allele has a frequency of 10%. Based on this detection rate, we determine that the true error rate is roughly 3.3-4 times that of the apparent error rate at an SNP locus. The greatest discrepancy between true and apparent error rates occurs when allele frequencies are equal.     

Distinct error rates for reference and nonreference genotypes estimated by pedigree analysis

Errors in genotype calling can have perverse effects on genetic analyses, confounding association studies, and obscuring rare variants. Analyses now routinely incorporate error rates to control for spurious findings. However, reliable estimates of the error rate can be difficult to obtain because of their variance between studies. Most studies also report only a single estimate of the error rate even though genotypes can be miscalled in more than one way. Here, we report a method for estimating the rates at which different types of genotyping errors occur at biallelic loci using pedigree information. Our method identifies potential genotyping errors by exploiting instances where the haplotypic phase has not been faithfully transmitted. The expected frequency of inconsistent phase depends on the combination of genotypes in a pedigree and the probability of miscalling each genotype. We develop a model that uses the differences in these frequencies to estimate rates for different types of genotype error. Simulations show that our method accurately estimates these error rates in a variety of scenarios. We apply this method to a dataset from the whole-genome sequencing of owl monkeys (Aotus nancymaae) in three-generation pedigrees. We find significant differences between estimates for different types of genotyping error, with the most common being homozygous reference sites miscalled as heterozygous and vice versa. The approach we describe is applicable to any set of genotypes where haplotypic phase can reliably be called and should prove useful in helping to control for false discoveries.     

A multipoint method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in sibling-pair linkage data

The identification of genes contributing to complex diseases and quantitative traits requires genetic data of high fidelity, because undetected errors and mutations can profoundly affect linkage information. The recent emphasis on the use of the sibling-pair design eliminates or decreases the likelihood of detection of genotyping errors and marker mutations through apparent Mendelian incompatibilities or close double recombinants. In this article, we describe a hidden Markov method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in multilocus linkage data. Specifically, we calculate the posterior probability of genotyping error or mutation for each sibling-pair-marker combination, conditional on all marker data and an assumed genotype-error rate. The method is designed for use with sibling-pair data when parental genotypes are unavailable. Through Monte Carlo simulation, we explore the effects of map density, marker-allele frequencies, marker position, and genotype-error rate on the accuracy of our error-detection method. In addition, we examine the impact of genotyping errors and error detection and correction on multipoint linkage information. We illustrate that even moderate error rates can result in substantial loss of linkage information, given efforts to fine-map a putative disease locus. Although simulations suggest that our method detects 相似文献   

Identification of Mendelian inconsistencies between SNP and pedigree information of sibs

Background

Using SNP genotypes to apply genomic selection in breeding programs is becoming common practice. Tools to edit and check the quality of genotype data are required. Checking for Mendelian inconsistencies makes it possible to identify animals for which pedigree information and genotype information are not in agreement.

Methods

Straightforward tests to detect Mendelian inconsistencies exist that count the number of opposing homozygous marker (e.g. SNP) genotypes between parent and offspring (PAR-OFF). Here, we develop two tests to identify Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs. The first test counts SNP with opposing homozygous genotypes between sib pairs (SIBCOUNT). The second test compares pedigree and SNP-based relationships (SIBREL). All tests iteratively remove animals based on decreasing numbers of inconsistent parents and offspring or sibs. The PAR-OFF test, followed by either SIB test, was applied to a dataset comprising 2,078 genotyped cows and 211 genotyped sires. Theoretical expectations for distributions of test statistics of all three tests were calculated and compared to empirically derived values. Type I and II error rates were calculated after applying the tests to the edited data, while Mendelian inconsistencies were introduced by permuting pedigree against genotype data for various proportions of animals.

Results

Both SIB tests identified animal pairs for which pedigree and genomic relationships could be considered as inconsistent by visual inspection of a scatter plot of pairwise pedigree and SNP-based relationships. After removal of 235 animals with the PAR-OFF test, SIBCOUNT (SIBREL) identified 18 (22) additional inconsistent animals.Seventeen animals were identified by both methods. The numbers of incorrectly deleted animals (Type I error), were equally low for both methods, while the numbers of incorrectly non-deleted animals (Type II error), were considerably higher for SIBREL compared to SIBCOUNT.

Conclusions

Tests to remove Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs should be preceded by a test for parent-offspring inconsistencies. This parent-offspring test should not only consider parent-offspring pairs based on pedigree data, but also those based on SNP information. Both SIB tests could identify pairs of sibs with Mendelian inconsistencies. Based on type I and II error rates, counting opposing homozygotes between sibs (SIBCOUNT) appears slightly more precise than comparing genomic and pedigree relationships (SIBREL) to detect Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs.     

Quality Control of Genotypes Using Heritability Estimates of Gene Content at the Marker

Quality control filtering of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is a key step when analyzing genomic data. Here we present a practical method to identify low-quality SNPs, meaning markers whose genotypes are wrongly assigned for a large proportion of individuals, by estimating the heritability of gene content at each marker, where gene content is the number of copies of a particular reference allele in a genotype of an animal (0, 1, or 2). If there is no mutation at the marker, gene content has an additive heritability of 1 by construction. The method uses restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate heritability of gene content at each SNP and also builds a likelihood-ratio test statistic to test for zero error variance in genotyping. As a by-product, estimates of the allele frequencies of markers at the base population are obtained. Using simulated data with 10% permutation error (4% actual error) in genotyping, the method had a specificity of 0.96 (4% of correct markers are rejected) and a sensitivity of 0.99 (1% of wrong markers are accepted) if markers with heritability lower than 0.975 are discarded. Checking of Mendelian errors resulted in a lower sensitivity (0.84) for the same simulation. The proposed method is further illustrated with a real data set with genotypes from 3534 animals genotyped for 50,433 markers from the Illumina PorcineSNP60 chip and a pedigree of 6473 individuals; those markers underwent very little quality control. A total of 4099 markers with P-values lower than 0.01 were discarded based on our method, with associated estimates of heritability as low as 0.12. Contrary to other techniques, our method uses all information in the population simultaneously, can be used in any population with markers and pedigree recordings, and is simple to implement using standard software for REML estimation. Scripts for its use are provided.     

Error detection for genetic data, using likelihood methods.

As genetic maps become denser, the effect of laboratory typing errors becomes more serious. We review a general method for detecting errors in pedigree genotyping data that is a variant of the likelihood-ratio test statistic. It pinpoints individuals and loci with relatively unlikely genotypes. Power and significance studies using Monte Carlo methods are shown by using simulated data with pedigree structures similar to the CEPH pedigrees and a larger experimental pedigree used in the study of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The studies show the index detects errors for small values of theta with high power and an acceptable false positive rate. The method was also used to check for errors in DCM laboratory pedigree data and to estimate the error rate in CEPH-chromosome 6 data. The errors flagged by our method in the DCM pedigree were confirmed by the laboratory. The results are consistent with estimated false-positive and false-negative rates obtained using simulation.     

FP-TDI SNP scoring by manual and statistical procedures: a study of error rates and types

For technologies that are commonly used in ordinary laboratories such as fluorescence-polarization detection with template-directed, dye-terminator incorporation (FP-TDI), SNP genotype scoring is usually done manually. Here we study rates of errors and missing genotypes obtained with this procedure. We also introduce three statistical genotype scoring methods to examine whether they form a viable alternative. Data consisted of eight SNPs typed in about 1400 individuals from 268 pedigrees. The statistical procedures performed better on several internal criteria, such as the number of Mendelian errors, and showed much higher agreement with discrepant genotypes re-scored by two raters. The best results were obtained with the statistical procedure that incorporated information about regularities in the error structure of the FP-TDI data. We estimated that there were about 1.6% more errors if genotypes were scored manually. About 0.6% of these errors could be explained by data manipulation errors, leaving 1% as the result of possible incorrect scoring. There were 3.3% more missing genotypes in the manual scoring due to errors in data manipulation (1.7%) and conservative scoring (1.6%).     

Estimation of genotyping error rate from repeat genotyping,unintentional recaptures and known parent–offspring comparisons in 16 microsatellite loci for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus)

Genotyping errors are present in almost all genetic data and can affect biological conclusions of a study, particularly for studies based on individual identification and parentage. Many statistical approaches can incorporate genotyping errors, but usually need accurate estimates of error rates. Here, we used a new microsatellite data set developed for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) to estimate genotyping error using three approaches: (i) repeat genotyping 5% of samples, (ii) comparing unintentionally recaptured individuals and (iii) Mendelian inheritance error checking for known parent–offspring pairs. In each data set, we quantified genotyping error rate per allele due to allele drop‐out and false alleles. Genotyping error rate per locus revealed an average overall genotyping error rate by direct count of 0.3%, 1.5% and 1.7% (0.002, 0.007 and 0.008 per allele error rate) from replicate genotypes, known parent–offspring pairs and unintentionally recaptured individuals, respectively. By direct‐count error estimates, the recapture and known parent–offspring data sets revealed an error rate four times greater than estimated using repeat genotypes. There was no evidence of correlation between error rates and locus variability for all three data sets, and errors appeared to occur randomly over loci in the repeat genotypes, but not in recaptures and parent–offspring comparisons. Furthermore, there was no correlation in locus‐specific error rates between any two of the three data sets. Our data suggest that repeat genotyping may underestimate true error rates and may not estimate locus‐specific error rates accurately. We therefore suggest using methods for error estimation that correspond to the overall aim of the study (e.g. known parent–offspring comparisons in parentage studies).