IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgen00/1006040.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Rare-Variant Association without Calling Genotypes Allows for Systematic Differences in Sequencing between Cases and Controls

Author

Listed:
  • Yi-Juan Hu
  • Peizhou Liao
  • H Richard Johnston
  • Andrew S Allen
  • Glen A Satten

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing of DNA provides an unprecedented opportunity to discover rare genetic variants associated with complex diseases and traits. However, the common practice of first calling underlying genotypes and then treating the called values as known is prone to false positive findings, especially when genotyping errors are systematically different between cases and controls. This happens whenever cases and controls are sequenced at different depths, on different platforms, or in different batches. In this article, we provide a likelihood-based approach to testing rare variant associations that directly models sequencing reads without calling genotypes. We consider the (weighted) burden test statistic, which is the (weighted) sum of the score statistic for assessing effects of individual variants on the trait of interest. Because variant locations are unknown, we develop a simple, computationally efficient screening algorithm to estimate the loci that are variants. Because our burden statistic may not have mean zero after screening, we develop a novel bootstrap procedure for assessing the significance of the burden statistic. We demonstrate through extensive simulation studies that the proposed tests are robust to a wide range of differential sequencing qualities between cases and controls, and are at least as powerful as the standard genotype calling approach when the latter controls type I error. An application to the UK10K data reveals novel rare variants in gene BTBD18 associated with childhood onset obesity. The relevant software is freely available.Author Summary: In next-generation sequencing studies, there are typically systematic differences in sequencing qualities (e.g., depth) between cases and controls, because the entire studies are rarely sequenced in exactly the same way. It has long been appreciated that, in the presence of such differences, the standard genotype calling approach to detecting rare variant associations generally leads to excessive false positive findings. To deal with this, the current “state of the art” is to impose stringent quality control procedures that much of the data is eliminated. We present a method that allows analyzing data with a wide range of differential sequencing qualities between cases and controls. Our method is more powerful than the current practice and can accelerate the search for disease-causing mutations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi-Juan Hu & Peizhou Liao & H Richard Johnston & Andrew S Allen & Glen A Satten, 2016. "Testing Rare-Variant Association without Calling Genotypes Allows for Systematic Differences in Sequencing between Cases and Controls," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgen00:1006040
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006040
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006040&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006040?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. Wei Sun & Chong Jin & Jonathan A. Gelfond & Ming‐Hui Chen & Joseph G. Ibrahim, 2020. "Joint analysis of single‐cell and bulk tissue sequencing data to infer intratumor heterogeneity," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 983-994, September.

    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:pgen00:1006040. 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.