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.     

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.     

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.     

Estimation of genotype error rate using samples with pedigree information--an application on the GeneChip Mapping 10K array

Currently, most analytical methods assume all observed genotypes are correct; however, it is clear that errors may reduce statistical power or bias inference in genetic studies. We propose procedures for estimating error rate in genetic analysis and apply them to study the GeneChip Mapping 10K array, which is a technology that has recently become available and allows researchers to survey over 10,000 SNPs in a single assay. We employed a strategy to estimate the genotype error rate in pedigree data. First, the "dose-response" reference curve between error rate and the observable error number were derived by simulation, conditional on given pedigree structures and genotypes. Second, the error rate was estimated by calibrating the number of observed errors in real data to the reference curve. We evaluated the performance of this method by simulation study and applied it to a data set of 30 pedigrees genotyped using the GeneChip Mapping 10K array. This method performed favorably in all scenarios we surveyed. The dose-response reference curve was monotone and almost linear with a large slope. The method was able to estimate accurately the error rate under various pedigree structures and error models and under heterogeneous error rates. Using this method, we found that the average genotyping error rate of the GeneChip Mapping 10K array was about 0.1%. Our method provides a quick and unbiased solution to address the genotype error rate in pedigree data. It behaves well in a wide range of settings and can be easily applied in other genetic projects. The robust estimation of genotyping error rate allows us to estimate power and sample size and conduct unbiased genetic tests. The GeneChip Mapping 10K array has a low overall error rate, which is consistent with the results obtained from alternative genotyping assays.     

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.     

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.     

Detection rates for genotyping errors in SNPs using the trio design

One well-known approach for the analysis of transmission-disequilibrium is the investigation of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in trios consisting of an affected child and its parents. Results may be biased by erroneously given genotypes. Various reasons, among them sample swap or wrong pedigree structure, represent a possible source for biased results. As these can be partly ruled out by good study conditions together with checks for correct pedigree structure by a series of independent markers, the remaining main cause for errors is genotyping errors. Some of the errors can be detected by Mendelian checks whilst others are compatible with the pedigree structure. The extent of genotyping errors can be estimated by investigating the rate of detected genotyping errors by Mendelian checks. In many studies only one SNP of a specific genomic region is investigated by TDT which leaves Mendelian checks as the only tool to control genotyping errors. From the rate of detected errors the true error rate can be estimated. Gordon et al. [Hum Hered 1999;49:65-70] considered the case of genotyping errors that occur randomly and independently with some fixed probability for the wrong ascertainment of an allele. In practice, instead of single alleles, SNP genotypes are determined. Therefore, we study the proportion of detected errors (detection rate) based on genotypes. In contrast to Gordon et al., who reported detection rates between 25 and 30%, we obtain higher detection rates ranging from 39 up to 61% considering likely error structures in the data. We conclude that detection rates are probably substantially higher than those reported by Gordon et al.     

A family-based likelihood ratio test for general pedigree structures that allows for genotyping error and missing data

The purpose of this work is the development of a family-based association test that allows for random genotyping errors and missing data and makes use of information on affected and unaffected pedigree members. We derive the conditional likelihood functions of the general nuclear family for the following scenarios: complete parental genotype data and no genotyping errors; only one genotyped parent and no genotyping errors; no parental genotype data and no genotyping errors; and no parental genotype data with genotyping errors. We find maximum likelihood estimates of the marker locus parameters, including the penetrances and population genotype frequencies under the null hypothesis that all penetrance values are equal and under the alternative hypothesis. We then compute the likelihood ratio test. We perform simulations to assess the adequacy of the central chi-square distribution approximation when the null hypothesis is true. We also perform simulations to compare the power of the TDT and this likelihood-based method. Finally, we apply our method to 23 SNPs genotyped in nuclear families from a recently published study of idiopathic scoliosis (IS). Our simulations suggest that this likelihood ratio test statistic follows a central chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom under the null hypothesis, even in the presence of missing data and genotyping errors. The power comparison shows that this likelihood ratio test is more powerful than the original TDT for the simulations considered. For the IS data, the marker rs7843033 shows the most significant evidence for our method (p = 0.0003), which is consistent with a previous report, which found rs7843033 to be the 2nd most significant TDTae p value among a set of 23 SNPs.     

Effect of genotyping error on type-I error rate of affected sib pair studies with genotyped parents

OBJECTIVE: In affected sib pair studies without genotyped parents the effect of genotyping error is generally to reduce the type I error rate and power of tests for linkage. The effect of genotyping error when parents have been genotyped is unknown. We investigated the type I error rate of the single-point Mean test for studies in which genotypes of both parents are available. METHODS: Datasets were simulated assuming no linkage and one of five models for genotyping error. In each dataset, Mendelian-inconsistent families were either excluded or regenotyped, and then the Mean test applied. RESULTS: We found that genotyping errors lead to an inflated type I error rate when inconsistent families are excluded. Depending on the genotyping-error model assumed, regenotyping inconsistent families has one of several effects. It may produce the same type I error rate as if inconsistent families are excluded; it may reduce the type I error, but still leave an anti-conservative test; or it may give a conservative test. Departures of the type I error rate from its nominal level increase with both the genotyping error rate and sample size. CONCLUSION: We recommend that markers with high error rates either be excluded from the analysis or be regenotyped in all families.     

The impact of missing and erroneous genotypes on tagging SNP selection and power of subsequent association tests

OBJECTIVE: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) serve as effective markers for localizing disease susceptibility genes, but current genotyping technologies are inadequate for genotyping all available SNP markers in a typical linkage/association study. Much attention has recently been paid to methods for selecting the minimal informative subset of SNPs in identifying haplotypes, but there has been little investigation of the effect of missing or erroneous genotypes on the performance of these SNP selection algorithms and subsequent association tests using the selected tagging SNPs. The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of missing genotype or genotyping error on tagging SNP selection and subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests using the selected tagging SNPs. METHODS: Through two sets of simulations, we evaluated the performance of three tagging SNP selection programs in the presence of missing or erroneous genotypes: Clayton's diversity based program htstep, Carlson's linkage disequilibrium (LD) based program ldSelect, and Stram's coefficient of determination based program tagsnp.exe. RESULTS: When randomly selected known loci were relabeled as 'missing', we found that the average number of tagging SNPs selected by all three algorithms changed very little and the power of subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests using the selected tagging SNPs remained close to the power of these tests in the absence of missing genotype. When random genotyping errors were introduced, we found that the average number of tagging SNPs selected by all three algorithms increased. In data sets simulated according to the haplotype frequecies in the CYP19 region, Stram's program had larger increase than Carlson's and Clayton's programs. In data sets simulated under the coalescent model, Carlson's program had the largest increase and Clayton's program had the smallest increase. In both sets of simulations, with the presence of genotyping errors, the power of the haplotype tests from all three programs decreased quickly, but there was not much reduction in power of the single marker tests. CONCLUSIONS: Missing genotypes do not seem to have much impact on tagging SNP selection and subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests. In contrast, genotyping errors could have severe impact on tagging SNP selection and haplotype tests, but not on single marker tests.     

Family-based association tests using genotype data with uncertainty

Family-based association studies have been widely used to identify association between diseases and genetic markers. It is known that genotyping uncertainty is inherent in both directly genotyped or sequenced DNA variations and imputed data in silico. The uncertainty can lead to genotyping errors and missingness and can negatively impact the power and Type I error rates of family-based association studies even if the uncertainty is independent of disease status. Compared with studies using unrelated subjects, there are very few methods that address the issue of genotyping uncertainty for family-based designs. The limited attempts have mostly been made to correct the bias caused by genotyping errors. Without properly addressing the issue, the conventional testing strategy, i.e. family-based association tests using called genotypes, can yield invalid statistical inferences. Here, we propose a new test to address the challenges in analyzing case-parents data by using calls with high accuracy and modeling genotype-specific call rates. Our simulations show that compared with the conventional strategy and an alternative test, our new test has an improved performance in the presence of substantial uncertainty and has a similar performance when the uncertainty level is low. We also demonstrate the advantages of our new method by applying it to imputed markers from a genome-wide case-parents association study.     

Power and sample size calculations for case-control genetic association tests when errors are present: application to single nucleotide polymorphisms

The purpose of this work is to quantify the effects that errors in genotyping have on power and the sample size necessary to maintain constant asymptotic Type I and Type II error rates (SSN) for case-control genetic association studies between a disease phenotype and a di-allelic marker locus, for example a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) locus. We consider the effects of three published models of genotyping errors on the chi-square test for independence in the 2 x 3 table. After specifying genotype frequencies for the marker locus conditional on disease status and error model in both a genetic model-based and a genetic model-free framework, we compute the asymptotic power to detect association through specification of the test's non-centrality parameter. This parameter determines the functional dependence of SSN on the genotyping error rates. Additionally, we study the dependence of SSN on linkage disequilibrium (LD), marker allele frequencies, and genotyping error rates for a dominant disease model. Increased genotyping error rate requires a larger SSN. Every 1% increase in sum of genotyping error rates requires that both case and control SSN be increased by 2-8%, with the extent of increase dependent upon the error model. For the dominant disease model, SSN is a nonlinear function of LD and genotyping error rate, with greater SSN for lower LD and higher genotyping error rate. The combination of lower LD and higher genotyping error rates requires a larger SSN than the sum of the SSN for the lower LD and for the higher genotyping error rate.     

SimPed: a simulation program to generate haplotype and genotype data for pedigree structures

With the widespread availability of SNP genotype data, there is great interest in analyzing pedigree haplotype data. Intermarker linkage disequilibrium for microsatellite markers is usually low due to their physical distance; however, for dense maps of SNP markers, there can be strong linkage disequilibrium between marker loci. Linkage analysis (parametric and nonparametric) and family-based association studies are currently being carried out using dense maps of SNP marker loci. Monte Carlo methods are often used for both linkage and association studies; however, to date there are no programs available which can generate haplotype and/or genotype data consisting of a large number of loci for pedigree structures. SimPed is a program that quickly generates haplotype and/or genotype data for pedigrees of virtually any size and complexity. Marker data either in linkage disequilibrium or equilibrium can be generated for greater than 20,000 diallelic or multiallelic marker loci. Haplotypes and/or genotypes are generated for pedigree structures using specified genetic map distances and haplotype and/or allele frequencies. The simulated data generated by SimPed is useful for a variety of purposes, including evaluating methods that estimate haplotype frequencies for pedigree data, evaluating type I error due to intermarker linkage disequilibrium and estimating empirical p values for linkage and family-based association studies.     

Breakpoint analysis: precise localization of genetic markers by means of nonstatistical computation using relatively few genotypes.

Placing new markers on a previously existing genetic map by using conventional methods of multilocus linkage analysis requires that a large number of reference families be genotyped. This paper presents a methodology for placing new markers on existing genetic maps by genotyping only a few individuals in a selected subset of the reference panel. We show that by identifying meiotic breakpoint events within existing genetic maps and genotyping individuals who exhibit these events, along with one nonrecombinant sibling and their parents, we can determine precise location for new markers even within subcentimorgan chromosomal regions. This method also improves detection of errors in genotyping and assists in the observation of chromosome behavior in specific regions.     

Selective mapping: a strategy for optimizing the construction of high-density linkage maps

Historically, linkage mapping populations have consisted of large, randomly selected samples of progeny from a given pedigree or cell lines from a panel of radiation hybrids. We demonstrate that, to construct a map with high genome-wide marker density, it is neither necessary nor desirable to genotype all markers in every individual of a large mapping population. Instead, a reduced sample of individuals bearing complementary recombinational or radiation-induced breakpoints may be selected for genotyping subsequent markers from a large, but sparsely genotyped, mapping population. Choosing such a sample can be reduced to a discrete stochastic optimization problem for which the goal is a sample with breakpoints spaced evenly throughout the genome. We have developed several different methods for selecting such samples and have evaluated their performance on simulated and actual mapping populations, including the Lister and Dean Arabidopsis thaliana recombinant inbred population and the GeneBridge 4 human radiation hybrid panel. Our methods quickly and consistently find much-reduced samples with map resolution approaching that of the larger populations from which they are derived. This approach, which we have termed selective mapping, can facilitate the production of high-quality, high-density genome-wide linkage maps.     

Genomic selection using low density marker panels with application to a sire line in pigs

Background

Genomic selection has become a standard tool in dairy cattle breeding. However, for other animal species, implementation of this technology is hindered by the high cost of genotyping. One way to reduce the routine costs is to genotype selection candidates with an SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) panel of reduced density. This strategy is investigated in the present paper. Methods are proposed for the approximation of SNP positions, for selection of SNPs to be included in the low-density panel, for genotype imputation, and for the estimation of the accuracy of genomic breeding values. The imputation method was developed for a situation in which selection candidates are genotyped with an SNP panel of reduced density but have high-density genotyped sires. The dams of selection candidates are not genotyped. The methods were applied to a sire line pig population with 895 German Piétrain boars genotyped with the PorcineSNP60 BeadChip.

Results

Genotype imputation error rates were 0.133 for a 384 marker panel, 0.079 for a 768 marker panel, and 0.022 for a 3000 marker panel. Error rates for markers with approximated positions were slightly larger. Availability of high-density genotypes for close relatives of the selection candidates reduced the imputation error rate. The estimated decrease in the accuracy of genomic breeding values due to imputation errors was 3% for the 384 marker panel and negligible for larger panels, provided that at least one parent of the selection candidates was genotyped at high-density.Genomic breeding values predicted from deregressed breeding values with low reliabilities were more strongly correlated with the estimated BLUP breeding values than with the true breeding values. This was not the case when a shortened pedigree was used to predict BLUP breeding values, in which the parents of the individuals genotyped at high-density were considered unknown.

Conclusions

Genomic selection with imputation from very low- to high-density marker panels is a promising strategy for the implementation of genomic selection at acceptable costs. A panel size of 384 markers can be recommended for selection candidates of a pig breeding program if at least one parent is genotyped at high-density, but this appears to be the lower bound.     

Modeling of identity-by-descent processes along a chromosome between haplotypes and their genotyped ancestors

Identity-by-descent probabilities are important for many applications in genetics. Here we propose a method for modeling the transmission of the haplotypes from the closest genotyped relatives along an entire chromosome. The method relies on a hidden Markov model where hidden states correspond to the set of all possible origins of a haplotype within a given pedigree. Initial state probabilities are estimated from average genetic contribution of each origin to the modeled haplotype while transition probabilities are computed from recombination probabilities and pedigree relationships between the modeled haplotype and the various possible origins. The method was tested on three simulated scenarios based on real data sets from dairy cattle, Arabidopsis thaliana, and maize. The mean identity-by-descent probabilities estimated for the truly inherited parental chromosome ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 according to the design and the marker density. The lowest values were observed in regions close to crossing over or where the method was not able to discriminate between several origins due to their similarity. It is shown that the estimated probabilities were correctly calibrated. For marker imputation (or QTL allele prediction for fine mapping or genomic selection), the method was efficient, with 3.75% allelic imputation error rates on a dairy cattle data set with a low marker density map (1 SNP/Mb). The method should prove useful for situations we are facing now in experimental designs and in plant and animal breeding, where founders are genotyped with relatively high markers densities and last generation(s) genotyped with a lower-density panel.     

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.     

Maximum-likelihood estimation of allelic dropout and false allele error rates from microsatellite genotypes in the absence of reference data

The importance of quantifying and accounting for stochastic genotyping errors when analyzing microsatellite data is increasingly being recognized. This awareness is motivating the development of data analysis methods that not only take errors into consideration but also recognize the difference between two distinct classes of error, allelic dropout and false alleles. Currently methods to estimate rates of allelic dropout and false alleles depend upon the availability of error-free reference genotypes or reliable pedigree data, which are often not available. We have developed a maximum-likelihood-based method for estimating these error rates from a single replication of a sample of genotypes. Simulations show it to be both accurate and robust to modest violations of its underlying assumptions. We have applied the method to estimating error rates in two microsatellite data sets. It is implemented in a computer program, Pedant, which estimates allelic dropout and false allele error rates with 95% confidence regions from microsatellite genotype data and performs power analysis. Pedant is freely available at http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/ approximately paulj/pedant.html.