title: Assessing batch effects of genotype calling algorithm BRLMM for the Affymetrix GeneChip Human Mapping 500 K array set using 270 HapMap samples.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: 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
authors.forename: Huixiao
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Hong
authors.forename: Zhenqiang
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Su
authors.forename: Weigong
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Ge
authors.forename: Leming
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Shi
authors.forename: Roger
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Perkins
authors.forename: Hong
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Fang
authors.forename: Joshua
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Xu
authors.forename: James J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Tao
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Han
authors.forename: Jim
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kaput
authors.forename: James C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Fuscoe
authors.forename: Weida
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Tong
mesh_terms: 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
references.citation: Science. 2007 May 11;316(5826):889-94
references.pmid: 17434869
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Feb;39(2):207-11
references.pmid: 17200669
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):1000-6
references.pmid: 17637780
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1299-320
references.pmid: 16255080
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Feb;80(2):273-90
references.pmid: 17236132
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 11;104(37):14747-52
references.pmid: 17804789
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Feb 22;445(7130):881-5
references.pmid: 17293876
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):857-64
references.pmid: 17554260
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):989-94
references.pmid: 17618283
references.citation: Science. 2005 Apr 15;308(5720):385-9
references.pmid: 15761122
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 5;105(5):1620-5
references.pmid: 18245381
references.citation: PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Nov;1(6):e65
references.pmid: 16322765
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2007 Jun 15;23(12):1459-67
references.pmid: 17459966
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2007 Apr;8(2):485-99
references.pmid: 17189563
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):984-8
references.pmid: 17618284
references.citation: Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1341-5
references.pmid: 17463248
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Jan;82(1):160-4
references.pmid: 18179894
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Feb;82(2):411-23
references.pmid: 18252221
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 May;39(5):631-7
references.pmid: 17401366
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 May;39(5):645-9
references.pmid: 17401363
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Jun 28;447(7148):1087-93
references.pmid: 17529967
references.citation: Genes Brain Behav. 2008 Jun;7(4):435-46
references.pmid: 18067574
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):870-4
references.pmid: 17529973
references.citation: Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1331-6
references.pmid: 17463246
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 May;39(5):596-604
references.pmid: 17435756
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2006 Jun;38(6):617-9
references.pmid: 16699517
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2005 May 1;21(9):1958-63
references.pmid: 15657097
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):661-78
references.pmid: 17554300
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Oct 18;449(7164):851-61
references.pmid: 17943122
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 1;23(1):57-63
references.pmid: 17062589
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2006 Jan 1;22(1):7-12
references.pmid: 16267090
references.citation: Methods Mol Med. 2008;141:23-35
references.pmid: 18453082
references.citation: Hum Mol Genet. 2007 Apr 15;16(8):865-73
references.pmid: 17317784
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Aug;39(8):995-9
references.pmid: 17632509
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2006 Aug 15;22(16):1942-7
references.pmid: 16809396
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):827-9
references.pmid: 17558408
references.citation: Science. 2006 Dec 1;314(5804):1461-3
references.pmid: 17068223
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2003 Dec 12;19(18):2397-403
references.pmid: 14668223
references.citation: Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1336-41
references.pmid: 17463249