↓ Skip to main content

Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study

Overview of attention for article published in Genetic Epidemiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study
Published in
Genetic Epidemiology, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/gepi.22027
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A key step in genomic studies is to assess high throughput measurements across millions of markers for each participant's DNA, either using microarrays or sequencing techniques. Accurate genotype calling is essential for downstream statistical analysis of genotype-phenotype associations, and next generation sequencing (NGS) has recently become a more common approach in genomic studies. How the accuracy of variant calling in NGS-based studies affects downstream association analysis has not, however, been studied using empirical data in which both microarrays and NGS were available. In this article, we investigate the impact of variant calling errors on the statistical power to identify associations between single nucleotides and disease, and on associations between multiple rare variants and disease. Both differential and nondifferential genotyping errors are considered. Our results show that the power of burden tests for rare variants is strongly influenced by the specificity in variant calling, but is rather robust with regard to sensitivity. By using the variant calling accuracies estimated from a substudy of a Cooperative Studies Program project conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs, we show that the power of association tests is mostly retained with commonly adopted variant calling pipelines. An R package, GWAS.PC, is provided to accommodate power analysis that takes account of genotyping errors (http://zhaocenter.org/software/).

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Thailand 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 16 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 18 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#8,575,046
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from Genetic Epidemiology
#253
of 833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,566
of 422,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetic Epidemiology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 833 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.