归因的经验准确性与估计准确性:优化序列归因的过滤阈值

IF 3.6 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Genetics Selection Evolution Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s12711-024-00942-2
Tuan V. Nguyen, Sunduimijid Bolormaa, Coralie M. Reich, Amanda J. Chamberlain, Christy J. Vander Jagt, Hans D. Daetwyler, Iona M. MacLeod
{"title":"归因的经验准确性与估计准确性:优化序列归因的过滤阈值","authors":"Tuan V. Nguyen, Sunduimijid Bolormaa, Coralie M. Reich, Amanda J. Chamberlain, Christy J. Vander Jagt, Hans D. Daetwyler, Iona M. MacLeod","doi":"10.1186/s12711-024-00942-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Genotype imputation is a cost-effective method for obtaining sequence genotypes for downstream analyses such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, low imputation accuracy can increase the risk of false positives, so it is important to pre-filter data or at least assess the potential limitations due to imputation accuracy. In this study, we benchmarked three different imputation programs (Beagle 5.2, Minimac4 and IMPUTE5) and compared the empirical accuracy of imputation with the software estimated accuracy of imputation (Rsqsoft). We also tested the accuracy of imputation in cattle for autosomal and X chromosomes, SNP and INDEL, when imputing from either low-density or high-density genotypes. The accuracy of imputing sequence variants from real high-density genotypes was higher than from low-density genotypes. In our software benchmark, all programs performed well with only minor differences in accuracy. While there was a close relationship between empirical imputation accuracy and the imputation Rsqsoft, this differed considerably for Minimac4 compared to Beagle 5.2 and IMPUTE5. We found that the Rsqsoft threshold for removing poorly imputed variants must be customised according to the software and this should be accounted for when merging data from multiple studies, such as in meta-GWAS studies. We also found that imposing an Rsqsoft filter has a positive impact on genomic regions with poor imputation accuracy due to large segmental duplications that are susceptible to error-prone alignment. Overall, our results showed that on average the imputation accuracy for INDEL was approximately 6% lower than SNP for all software programs. Importantly, the imputation accuracy for the non-PAR (non-Pseudo-Autosomal Region) of the X chromosome was comparable to autosomal imputation accuracy, while for the PAR it was substantially lower, particularly when starting from low-density genotypes. This study provides an empirically derived approach to apply customised software-specific Rsqsoft thresholds for downstream analyses of imputed variants, such as needed for a meta-GWAS. The very poor empirical imputation accuracy for variants on the PAR when starting from low density genotypes demonstrates that this region should be imputed starting from a higher density of real genotypes.","PeriodicalId":55120,"journal":{"name":"Genetics Selection Evolution","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirical versus estimated accuracy of imputation: optimising filtering thresholds for sequence imputation\",\"authors\":\"Tuan V. Nguyen, Sunduimijid Bolormaa, Coralie M. Reich, Amanda J. Chamberlain, Christy J. Vander Jagt, Hans D. Daetwyler, Iona M. MacLeod\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12711-024-00942-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Genotype imputation is a cost-effective method for obtaining sequence genotypes for downstream analyses such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, low imputation accuracy can increase the risk of false positives, so it is important to pre-filter data or at least assess the potential limitations due to imputation accuracy. In this study, we benchmarked three different imputation programs (Beagle 5.2, Minimac4 and IMPUTE5) and compared the empirical accuracy of imputation with the software estimated accuracy of imputation (Rsqsoft). We also tested the accuracy of imputation in cattle for autosomal and X chromosomes, SNP and INDEL, when imputing from either low-density or high-density genotypes. The accuracy of imputing sequence variants from real high-density genotypes was higher than from low-density genotypes. In our software benchmark, all programs performed well with only minor differences in accuracy. While there was a close relationship between empirical imputation accuracy and the imputation Rsqsoft, this differed considerably for Minimac4 compared to Beagle 5.2 and IMPUTE5. We found that the Rsqsoft threshold for removing poorly imputed variants must be customised according to the software and this should be accounted for when merging data from multiple studies, such as in meta-GWAS studies. We also found that imposing an Rsqsoft filter has a positive impact on genomic regions with poor imputation accuracy due to large segmental duplications that are susceptible to error-prone alignment. Overall, our results showed that on average the imputation accuracy for INDEL was approximately 6% lower than SNP for all software programs. Importantly, the imputation accuracy for the non-PAR (non-Pseudo-Autosomal Region) of the X chromosome was comparable to autosomal imputation accuracy, while for the PAR it was substantially lower, particularly when starting from low-density genotypes. This study provides an empirically derived approach to apply customised software-specific Rsqsoft thresholds for downstream analyses of imputed variants, such as needed for a meta-GWAS. The very poor empirical imputation accuracy for variants on the PAR when starting from low density genotypes demonstrates that this region should be imputed starting from a higher density of real genotypes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetics Selection Evolution\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetics Selection Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-024-00942-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics Selection Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-024-00942-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基因型估算是为全基因组关联研究(GWAS)等下游分析获取序列基因型的一种经济有效的方法。然而,低估算准确性会增加假阳性的风险,因此预先过滤数据或至少评估估算准确性可能带来的限制是非常重要的。在本研究中,我们对三种不同的估算程序(Beagle 5.2、Minimac4 和 IMPUTE5)进行了基准测试,并比较了估算的经验准确性和软件估算的估算准确性(Rsqsoft)。我们还测试了牛的常染色体和 X 染色体、SNP 和 INDEL 在从低密度或高密度基因型推算时的推算准确性。从真实的高密度基因型推算序列变异的准确率高于从低密度基因型推算的准确率。在我们的软件基准测试中,所有程序都表现良好,只是在准确性上略有不同。虽然经验估算准确率与估算 Rsqsoft 之间关系密切,但 Minimac4 与 Beagle 5.2 和 IMPUTE5 相比差别很大。我们发现,剔除归因不佳变异的 Rsqsoft 阈值必须根据软件进行定制,在合并来自多个研究的数据时(如在 meta-GWAS 研究中)应考虑到这一点。我们还发现,实施 Rsqsoft 过滤器对估算准确性较差的基因组区域有积极影响,因为这些区域存在大的片段重复,容易发生配对错误。总之,我们的结果显示,在所有软件程序中,INDEL 的估算准确率平均比 SNP 低约 6%。重要的是,X 染色体非 PAR(非假常染色体区域)的估算准确率与常染色体估算准确率相当,而 PAR 的估算准确率则要低得多,尤其是从低密度基因型开始估算时。本研究提供了一种根据经验得出的方法,可将定制软件特定的 Rsqsoft 阈值应用于推算变异的下游分析,如元全球基因组分析系统(meta-GWAS)所需的分析。当从低密度基因型开始计算时,PAR 上变异的经验估算准确率非常低,这表明该区域应从更高密度的真实基因型开始估算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Empirical versus estimated accuracy of imputation: optimising filtering thresholds for sequence imputation
Genotype imputation is a cost-effective method for obtaining sequence genotypes for downstream analyses such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, low imputation accuracy can increase the risk of false positives, so it is important to pre-filter data or at least assess the potential limitations due to imputation accuracy. In this study, we benchmarked three different imputation programs (Beagle 5.2, Minimac4 and IMPUTE5) and compared the empirical accuracy of imputation with the software estimated accuracy of imputation (Rsqsoft). We also tested the accuracy of imputation in cattle for autosomal and X chromosomes, SNP and INDEL, when imputing from either low-density or high-density genotypes. The accuracy of imputing sequence variants from real high-density genotypes was higher than from low-density genotypes. In our software benchmark, all programs performed well with only minor differences in accuracy. While there was a close relationship between empirical imputation accuracy and the imputation Rsqsoft, this differed considerably for Minimac4 compared to Beagle 5.2 and IMPUTE5. We found that the Rsqsoft threshold for removing poorly imputed variants must be customised according to the software and this should be accounted for when merging data from multiple studies, such as in meta-GWAS studies. We also found that imposing an Rsqsoft filter has a positive impact on genomic regions with poor imputation accuracy due to large segmental duplications that are susceptible to error-prone alignment. Overall, our results showed that on average the imputation accuracy for INDEL was approximately 6% lower than SNP for all software programs. Importantly, the imputation accuracy for the non-PAR (non-Pseudo-Autosomal Region) of the X chromosome was comparable to autosomal imputation accuracy, while for the PAR it was substantially lower, particularly when starting from low-density genotypes. This study provides an empirically derived approach to apply customised software-specific Rsqsoft thresholds for downstream analyses of imputed variants, such as needed for a meta-GWAS. The very poor empirical imputation accuracy for variants on the PAR when starting from low density genotypes demonstrates that this region should be imputed starting from a higher density of real genotypes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Genetics Selection Evolution
Genetics Selection Evolution 生物-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
9.80%
发文量
74
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Genetics Selection Evolution invites basic, applied and methodological content that will aid the current understanding and the utilization of genetic variability in domestic animal species. Although the focus is on domestic animal species, research on other species is invited if it contributes to the understanding of the use of genetic variability in domestic animals. Genetics Selection Evolution publishes results from all levels of study, from the gene to the quantitative trait, from the individual to the population, the breed or the species. Contributions concerning both the biological approach, from molecular genetics to quantitative genetics, as well as the mathematical approach, from population genetics to statistics, are welcome. Specific areas of interest include but are not limited to: gene and QTL identification, mapping and characterization, analysis of new phenotypes, high-throughput SNP data analysis, functional genomics, cytogenetics, genetic diversity of populations and breeds, genetic evaluation, applied and experimental selection, genomic selection, selection efficiency, and statistical methodology for the genetic analysis of phenotypes with quantitative and mixed inheritance.
期刊最新文献
A computationally efficient algorithm to leverage average information REML for (co)variance component estimation in the genomic era On the ability of the LR method to detect bias when there is pedigree misspecification and lack of connectedness Empirical versus estimated accuracy of imputation: optimising filtering thresholds for sequence imputation The effect of phenotyping, adult selection, and mating strategies on genetic gain and rate of inbreeding in black soldier fly breeding programs Investigating genotype by environment interaction for beef cattle fertility traits in commercial herds in northern Australia with multi-trait analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1