IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgen00/1000668.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Needles in the Haystack: Identifying Individuals Present in Pooled Genomic Data

Author

Listed:
  • Rosemary Braun
  • William Rowe
  • Carl Schaefer
  • Jinghui Zhang
  • Kenneth Buetow

Abstract

Recent publications have described and applied a novel metric that quantifies the genetic distance of an individual with respect to two population samples, and have suggested that the metric makes it possible to infer the presence of an individual of known genotype in a sample for which only the marginal allele frequencies are known. However, the assumptions, limitations, and utility of this metric remained incompletely characterized. Here we present empirical tests of the method using publicly accessible genotypes, as well as analytical investigations of the method's strengths and limitations. The results reveal that the null distribution is sensitive to the underlying assumptions, making it difficult to accurately calibrate thresholds for classifying an individual as a member of the population samples. As a result, the false-positive rates obtained in practice are considerably higher than previously believed. However, despite the metric's inadequacies for identifying the presence of an individual in a sample, our results suggest potential avenues for future research on tuning this method to problems of ancestry inference or disease prediction. By revealing both the strengths and limitations of the proposed method, we hope to elucidate situations in which this distance metric may be used in an appropriate manner. We also discuss the implications of our findings in forensics applications and in the protection of GWAS participant privacy. Author Summary: In this report, we evaluate a recently-published method for resolving whether individuals are present in a complex genomic DNA mixture. Based on the intuition that an individual will be genetically “closer” to a sample containing him than to a sample not, the method investigated here uses a distance metric to quantify the similarity of an individual relative to two population samples. Although initial applications of this approach showed a promising false-negative rate, the accuracy of the assumed null distribution (and hence the true false-positive rate) remained uninvestigated; here, we explore this question analytically and describe tests of this method to assess the likelihood that an individual who is not in the mixture is mistakenly classified as being a member. Our results show that the method has a high false-positive rate in practice due to its sensitivity to underlying assumptions, limiting its utility for inferring the presence of an individual in a population. By revealing both the strengths and limitations of the proposed method, we elucidate situations in which this distance metric may be used in an appropriate manner in forensics and medical privacy policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosemary Braun & William Rowe & Carl Schaefer & Jinghui Zhang & Kenneth Buetow, 2009. "Needles in the Haystack: Identifying Individuals Present in Pooled Genomic Data," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgen00:1000668
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000668
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000668
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000668&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000668?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jae-Chang Cho, 2021. "Human microbiome privacy risks associated with summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-11, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pgen00:1000668. 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: plosgenetics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.