Assessing batch effects of genotype calling algorithm BRLMM for the Affymetrix GeneChip Human Mapping 500 K array set using 270 HapMap samples.
BACKGROUND
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) aim to identify genetic variants (usually single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]) across the entire human genome that are associated with phenotypic traits such as disease status and drug response. Highly accurate and reproducible genotype calling are paramount since errors introduced by calling algorithms can lead to inflation of false associations between genotype and phenotype. Most genotype calling algorithms currently used for GWAS are based on multiple arrays. Because hundreds of gigabytes (GB) of raw data are generated from a GWAS, the samples are typically partitioned into batches containing subsets of the entire dataset for genotype calling. High call rates and accuracies have been achieved. However, the effects of batch size (i.e., number of chips analyzed together) and of batch composition (i.e., the choice of chips in a batch) on call rate and accuracy as well as the propagation of the effects into significantly associated SNPs identified have not been investigated. In this paper, we analyzed both the batch size and batch composition for effects on the genotype calling algorithm BRLMM using raw data of 270 HapMap samples analyzed with the Affymetrix Human Mapping 500 K array set.


RESULTS
Using data from 270 HapMap samples interrogated with the Affymetrix Human Mapping 500 K array set, three different batch sizes and three different batch compositions were used for genotyping using the BRLMM algorithm. Comparative analysis of the calling results and the corresponding lists of significant SNPs identified through association analysis revealed that both batch size and composition affected genotype calling results and significantly associated SNPs. Batch size and batch composition effects were more severe on samples and SNPs with lower call rates than ones with higher call rates, and on heterozygous genotype calls compared to homozygous genotype calls.


CONCLUSIONS
Batch size and composition affect the genotype calling results in GWAS using BRLMM. The larger the differences in batch sizes, the larger the effect. The more homogenous the samples in the batches, the more consistent the genotype calls. The inconsistency propagates to the lists of significantly associated SNPs identified in downstream association analysis. Thus, uniform and large batch sizes should be used to make genotype calls for GWAS. In addition, samples of high homogeneity should be placed into the same batch.
Hong
Huixiao
H
Division of Systems Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA. Huixiao.Hong@fda.hhs.gov
Su
Zhenqiang
Z
Ge
Weigong
W
Shi
Leming
L
Perkins
Roger
R
Fang
Hong
H
Xu
Joshua
J
Chen
James J
JJ
Han
Tao
T
Kaput
Jim
J
Fuscoe
James C
JC
Tong
Weida
W
D000465:Algorithms; D001483:Base Sequence; D002874:Chromosome Mapping / Q000379:methods*; D004252:DNA Mutational Analysis / Q000379:methods; D015894:Genome, Human / Q000235:genetics*; D005838:Genotype; D006239:Haplotypes; D006801:Humans; D008969:Molecular Sequence Data; D020411:Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis / Q000379:methods*; D020641:Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide / Q000235:genetics*; D012984:Software
Science. 2007 May 11;316(5826):889-94
17434869
Nat Genet. 2007 Feb;39(2):207-11
17200669
Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):1000-6
17637780
Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1299-320
16255080
Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Feb;80(2):273-90
17236132
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 11;104(37):14747-52
17804789
Nature. 2007 Feb 22;445(7130):881-5
17293876
Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):857-64
17554260
Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):989-94
17618283
Science. 2005 Apr 15;308(5720):385-9
15761122
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 5;105(5):1620-5
18245381
PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Nov;1(6):e65
16322765
Bioinformatics. 2007 Jun 15;23(12):1459-67
17459966
Biostatistics. 2007 Apr;8(2):485-99
17189563
Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):984-8
17618284
Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1341-5
17463248
Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Jan;82(1):160-4
18179894
Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Feb;82(2):411-23
18252221
Nat Genet. 2007 May;39(5):631-7
17401366
Nat Genet. 2007 May;39(5):645-9
17401363
Nature. 2007 Jun 28;447(7148):1087-93
17529967
Genes Brain Behav. 2008 Jun;7(4):435-46
18067574
Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):870-4
17529973
Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1331-6
17463246
Nat Genet. 2007 May;39(5):596-604
17435756
Nat Genet. 2006 Jun;38(6):617-9
16699517
Bioinformatics. 2005 May 1;21(9):1958-63
15657097
Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):661-78
17554300
Nature. 2007 Oct 18;449(7164):851-61
17943122
Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 1;23(1):57-63
17062589
Bioinformatics. 2006 Jan 1;22(1):7-12
16267090
Methods Mol Med. 2008;141:23-35
18453082
Hum Mol Genet. 2007 Apr 15;16(8):865-73
17317784
Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):995-9
17632509
Bioinformatics. 2006 Aug 15;22(16):1942-7
16809396
Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):827-9
17558408
Science. 2006 Dec 1;314(5804):1461-3
17068223
Bioinformatics. 2003 Dec 12;19(18):2397-403
14668223
Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1336-41
17463249