↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the impact of genotype errors on rare variant tests of association

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Evaluating the impact of genotype errors on rare variant tests of association
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaitlyn Cook, Alejandra Benitez, Casey Fu, Nathan Tintle

Abstract

The new class of rare variant tests has usually been evaluated assuming perfect genotype information. In reality, rare variant genotypes may be incorrect, and so rare variant tests should be robust to imperfect data. Errors and uncertainty in SNP genotyping are already known to dramatically impact statistical power for single marker tests on common variants and, in some cases, inflate the type I error rate. Recent results show that uncertainty in genotype calls derived from sequencing reads are dependent on several factors, including read depth, calling algorithm, number of alleles present in the sample, and the frequency at which an allele segregates in the population. We have recently proposed a general framework for the evaluation and investigation of rare variant tests of association, classifying most rare variant tests into one of two broad categories (length or joint tests). We use this framework to relate factors affecting genotype uncertainty to the power and type I error rate of rare variant tests. We find that non-differential genotype errors (an error process that occurs independent of phenotype) decrease power, with larger decreases for extremely rare variants, and for the common homozygote to heterozygote error. Differential genotype errors (an error process that is associated with phenotype status), lead to inflated type I error rates which are more likely to occur at sites with more common homozygote to heterozygote errors than vice versa. Finally, our work suggests that certain rare variant tests and study designs may be more robust to the inclusion of genotype errors. Further work is needed to directly integrate genotype calling algorithm decisions, study costs and test statistic choices to provide comprehensive design and analysis advice which appropriately accounts for the impact of genotype errors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 7%
United States 1 7%
Unknown 13 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Researcher 3 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 27%
Mathematics 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,226,756
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#8,553
of 11,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,272
of 226,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#73
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 226,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.