The effects of reference panel perturbations on the accuracy of genotype imputation
Li, J. H.; Liu, A.; Buerkle, C. A.; Palmer, W.; Belbin, G. M.; Ahangari, M.; Gibson, M. J.; Flagel, L.
Show abstract
Reference-based genotype imputation is a standard technique that has become increasingly popular in large-scale studies involving genomic data. The two key elements involved in the process of genotype imputation are (1) the haplotype reference panel to which a target individual is being imputed, and (2) the imputation algorithm used to infer missing genotypes in the target individual. The imputation literature has historically focused mainly on (2), with a typical comparative study investigating the relative performance of various imputation algorithms while holding the reference panel constant. However, the role of the reference panel itself (1) on overall imputation performance is equally, if not more, important than the choice among many high-performing algorithms. Even though it is intuitive that the quality of a reference panel should play a role in the accuracy of imputation, it is nonetheless unclear to what extent common errors during panel creation (e.g., genotyping and phase error) lead to suboptimal imputation performance. In this study, we investigate the effects of applying three distinct modes of perturbations to a widely used haplotype reference panel in human genetics on the resulting imputation accuracy. Specifically, we perturb the reference panel by (1) randomly introducing phase errors, (2) randomly introducing genotype errors, and (3) randomly pruning variants from the panel (all at varying magnitudes). We then impute a set of diverse individuals at various sequencing coverages (0.5x, 1.0x, and 2.0x) to these various perturbed panels and evaluate imputation accuracy using the r2 metric for the entire cohort as well as ancestry-stratified subsets. We observe that both phase- and genotype-perturbations can dramatically affect imputation accuracy, particularly at very low allele frequencies, while pruning variants has a far smaller effect. We then empirically verified that our simulations reliably predict the impact of potential filtering techniques in a real-world dataset. In the context of haplotype reference panels, these results suggest that phasing and genotyping accuracy are far more important than the density of a reference panel used for imputation.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Low-pass sequencing plus imputation using avidity sequencing displays comparable imputation accuracy to sequencing by synthesis while reducing duplicates 97%
- Estimating allele frequencies, ancestry proportions and genotype likelihoods in the presence of mapping bias 95%
- Which mouse multiparental population is right for your study? The Collaborative Cross inbred strains, their F1 hybrids, or the Diversity Outbred population 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing and mitigating privacy risk of sparse, noisy genotypes by local alignment to haplotype databases 96%
- SVCollector: Optimized sample selection for cost-efficient long-read population sequencing 96%
- Low-pass sequencing increases the power of GWAS and decreases measurement error of polygenic risk scores compared to genotyping arrays 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying Causal Variants by Fine Mapping Across Multiple Studies 95%
- A novel expectation-maximization approach to infer general diploid selection from time-series genetic data 95%
- Adjusting for principal components can induce spurious associations in genome-wide association studies in admixed populations 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.