Author
Listed:
- Ekstrøm Claus T.
(University of Southern Denmark, Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences)
- Feenstra Bjarke
(Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Denmark)
Abstract
Genetic association studies require that the genotype data from a given person can be correctly linked to the phenotype data from the same person. However, sample misidentification errors sometimes happen, whereby the link becomes invalid for some of the subjects in a study. This can have substantial consequences in terms of power to detect truly associated variants. In family-based studies, Mendelian inconsistencies can be used to detect sample misidentification. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS), however, typically use unrelated individuals, making error detection more problematic.Here we present a method for identifying potential sample misidentifications in GWAS and other genetic association studies building on ideas from forensic sciences. A widely used ad-hoc method for error detection is to check if the sex of an individual matches its X-linked genotype. We generalize this idea to less stringent associations between known genotypes and phenotypes, and show that if several known associations are combined, the power to detect misidentifications increases substantially. Individuals with an unlikely set of phenotypes given their genotypes are flagged as potential errors.We provide analytical and simulation results comparing the odds that the genotype and phenotype are both from the same individual for different numbers of available genotype-phenotype associations and for different information content of the associations. Our method has good sensitivity and specificity with as few as ten moderately informative genotype-phenotype associations. We apply the method to GWAS data from the Danish National Birth Cohort.
Suggested Citation
Ekstrøm Claus T. & Feenstra Bjarke, 2012.
"Detecting Sample Misidentifications in Genetic Association Studies,"
Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, May.
Handle:
RePEc:bpj:sagmbi:v:11:y:2012:i:3:n:13
DOI: 10.1515/1544-6115.1772
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:sagmbi:v:11:y:2012:i:3:n:13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.