Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr 1:5:62.
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00062. eCollection 2014.

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

Affiliations

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

Kaitlyn Cook et al. Front Genet. .

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.

Keywords: SKAT; dosage; gene-based; genotype uncertainty; misclassification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Power for L1 in the presence of non-differential genotype errors at different MAF. Power loss occurs when non-differential genotype errors are present at a locus. The power curves illustrated are at a site with eight causal variants. As genotype errors increase, power loss occurs. However, the power loss is most substantial when the minor allele frequency is the lowest.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Type 1 error rate for J2 in the presence of differential genotype errors at different MAF. As differential error rates increase, the type I error rate increases. The type I error rate is illustrated at a site with eight non-causal variants. As differential (20% higher in cases) genotype error rates increased, the type I error rate increased. When the MAF was low, this effect was even larger.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Higher norms are more robust to genotype errors when the proportion of non-causal variants is larger: length tests. The figure illustrates power of four different (norm) length statistics, under varying error models. All test statistics experience power loss in the presence of errors. However, power loss can be mitigated through the use of high norm test statistics.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Higher norms are more robust to genotype errors when the proportion of non-causal variants is larger: joint tests. The figure illustrates power of four different (norm) joint statistics, under varying error models. All test statistics experience power loss in the presence of errors. However, power loss can be mitigated through the use of high norm test statistics.

References

    1. Ahn K., Gordon D., Finch S. J. (2009). Increase of rejection rate in case-control studies with differential genotyping error rates. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 8:Article25. 10.2202/1544-6115.1429 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahn K., Haynes C., Kim W., Fleur R. S., Gordon D., Finch S. J. (2007). The effects of SNP genotyping errors on the power of the Cochran-Armitage linear trend test for case/control association studies. Ann. Hum. Genet. 71(Pt 2), 249–261 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2006.00318.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Asimit J., Zeggini E. (2010). Rare variant association analysis methods for complex traits. Annu. Rev. Genet. 44, 293–308 10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163421 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Awadalla P., Gauthier J., Myers R. A, Casals F., Hamdan F. F., Griffing A. R., et al. (2010). Direct measure of the de novo mutation rate in autism and schizophrenia cohorts. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 87, 316–324 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.07.019 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bansal V., Libiger O., Torkamani A., Schork N. (2010). Statistical analysis strategies for association studies involving rare variants. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 773–785 10.1038/nrg2867 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources