IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0003551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyses and Comparison of Accuracy of Different Genotype Imputation Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Fang Pei
  • Jian Li
  • Lei Zhang
  • Christopher J Papasian
  • Hong-Wen Deng

Abstract

The power of genetic association analyses is often compromised by missing genotypic data which contributes to lack of significant findings, e.g., in in silico replication studies. One solution is to impute untyped SNPs from typed flanking markers, based on known linkage disequilibrium (LD) relationships. Several imputation methods are available and their usefulness in association studies has been demonstrated, but factors affecting their relative performance in accuracy have not been systematically investigated. Therefore, we investigated and compared the performance of five popular genotype imputation methods, MACH, IMPUTE, fastPHASE, PLINK and Beagle, to assess and compare the effects of factors that affect imputation accuracy rates (ARs). Our results showed that a stronger LD and a lower MAF for an untyped marker produced better ARs for all the five methods. We also observed that a greater number of haplotypes in the reference sample resulted in higher ARs for MACH, IMPUTE, PLINK and Beagle, but had little influence on the ARs for fastPHASE. In general, MACH and IMPUTE produced similar results and these two methods consistently outperformed fastPHASE, PLINK and Beagle. Our study is helpful in guiding application of imputation methods in association analyses when genotype data are missing.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Fang Pei & Jian Li & Lei Zhang & Christopher J Papasian & Hong-Wen Deng, 2008. "Analyses and Comparison of Accuracy of Different Genotype Imputation Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-7, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0003551
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003551
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003551&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0003551?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. Huang, Lucy & Buzbas, Erkan O. & Rosenberg, Noah A., 2013. "Genotype imputation in a coalescent model with infinitely-many-sites mutation," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 62-74.
    2. Cecilia M Lindgren & Iris M Heid & Joshua C Randall & Claudia Lamina & Valgerdur Steinthorsdottir & Lu Qi & Elizabeth K Speliotes & Gudmar Thorleifsson & Cristen J Willer & Blanca M Herrera & Anne U J, 2009. "Genome-Wide Association Scan Meta-Analysis Identifies Three Loci Influencing Adiposity and Fat Distribution," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Hou-Feng Zheng & Jing-Jing Rong & Ming Liu & Fang Han & Xing-Wei Zhang & J Brent Richards & Li Wang, 2015. "Performance of Genotype Imputation for Low Frequency and Rare Variants from the 1000 Genomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, January.

    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:pone00:0003551. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.