4.7 Article

SNiPer-HD: improved genotype calling accuracy by an expectation-maximization algorithm for high-density SNP arrays

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 57-63

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl536

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [U01-HL086528-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [U24 NS051872] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [U01HL086528] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [U24NS051872] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: The technology to genotype single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at extremely high densities provides for hypothesis-free genome-wide scans for common polymorphisms associated with complex disease. However, we find that some errors introduced by commonly employed genotyping algorithms may lead to inflation of false associations between markers and phenotype. Results: We have developed a novel SNP genotype calling program, SNiPer-High Density (SNiPer-HD), for highly accurate genotype calling across hundreds of thousands of SNPs. The program employs an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm with parameters based on a training sample set. The algorithm choice allows for highly accurate genotyping for most SNPs. Also, we introduce a quality control metric for each assayed SNP, such that poor-behaving SNPs can be filtered using a metric correlating to genotype class separation in the calling algorithm. SNiPer-HD is superior to the standard dynamic modeling algorithm and is complementary and non-redundant to other algorithms, such as BRLMM. Implementing multiple algorithms together may provide highly accurate genotyping calls, without inflation of false positives due to systematically miss-called SNPs. A reliable and accurate set of SNP genotypes for increasingly dense panels will eliminate some false association signals and false negative signals, allowing for rapid identification of disease susceptibility loci for complex traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据