↓ Skip to main content

Identifying and mitigating batch effects in whole genome sequencing data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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.
Title
Identifying and mitigating batch effects in whole genome sequencing data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1756-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A. Tom, Jens Reeder, William F. Forrest, Robert R. Graham, Julie Hunkapiller, Timothy W. Behrens, Tushar R. Bhangale

Abstract

Large sample sets of whole genome sequencing with deep coverage are being generated, however assembling datasets from different sources inevitably introduces batch effects. These batch effects are not well understood and can be due to changes in the sequencing protocol or bioinformatics tools used to process the data. No systematic algorithms or heuristics exist to detect and filter batch effects or remove associations impacted by batch effects in whole genome sequencing data. We describe key quality metrics, provide a freely available software package to compute them, and demonstrate that identification of batch effects is aided by principal components analysis of these metrics. To mitigate batch effects, we developed new site-specific filters that identified and removed variants that falsely associated with the phenotype due to batch effect. These include filtering based on: a haplotype based genotype correction, a differential genotype quality test, and removing sites with missing genotype rate greater than 30% after setting genotypes with quality scores less than 20 to missing. This method removed 96.1% of unconfirmed genome-wide significant SNP associations and 97.6% of unconfirmed genome-wide significant indel associations. We performed analyses to demonstrate that: 1) These filters impacted variants known to be disease associated as 2 out of 16 confirmed associations in an AMD candidate SNP analysis were filtered, representing a reduction in power of 12.5%, 2) In the absence of batch effects, these filters removed only a small proportion of variants across the genome (type I error rate of 3%), and 3) in an independent dataset, the method removed 90.2% of unconfirmed genome-wide SNP associations and 89.8% of unconfirmed genome-wide indel associations. Researchers currently do not have effective tools to identify and mitigate batch effects in whole genome sequencing data. We developed and validated methods and filters to address this deficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 21%
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Computer Science 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 28 22%
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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,048,567
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,806
of 7,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,713
of 316,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#38
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,512 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.