A comparison of approaches to account for uncertainty in analysis of imputed genotypes.
The availability of extensively genotyped reference samples, such as "The HapMap" and 1,000 Genomes Project reference panels, together with advances in statistical methodology, have allowed for the imputation of genotypes at single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers that are untyped in a cohort or case-control study. These imputation procedures facilitate the interpretation and meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies. A natural question when implementing these procedures concerns how best to take into account uncertainty in imputed genotypes. Here we compare the performance of the following three strategies: least-squares regression on the "best-guess" imputed genotype; regression on the expected genotype score or "dosage"; and mixture regression models that more fully incorporate posterior probabilities of genotypes at untyped SNPs. Using simulation, we considered a range of sample sizes, minor allele frequencies, and imputation accuracies to compare the performance of the different methods under various genetic models. The mixture models performed the best in the setting of a large genetic effect and low imputation accuracies. However, for most realistic settings, we find that regressing the phenotype on the estimated allelic or genotypic dosage provides an attractive compromise between accuracy and computational tractability.
Center for Statistical Genetics, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jin
J
Zheng
Yun
Y
Li
Gonçalo R
GR
Abecasis
Paul
P
Scheet
D015331:Cohort Studies; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D055106:Genome-Wide Association Study / Q000379:methods*; D005838:Genotype; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D017720:Molecular Epidemiology / Q000379:methods*; D010641:Phenotype; D012044:Regression Analysis; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012984:Software; D035501:Uncertainty
Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Mar;76(3):449-62
15700229
PLoS Genet. 2007 Jul;3(7):e114
17676998
Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Nov;81(5):1084-97
17924348
Nat Genet. 2008 Aug;40(8):955-62
18587394
Genet Epidemiol. 2010 Dec;34(8):816-34
21058334
Am J Hum Genet. 2006 Apr;78(4):629-44
16532393
PLoS Genet. 2008 Dec;4(12):e1000279
19057666
Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Feb;84(2):210-23
19200528
J Comput Biol. 2004;11(2-3):493-504
15285904
Genome Res. 2005 Nov;15(11):1576-83
16251467
Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):906-13
17572673
Nat Genet. 2008 Feb;40(2):161-9
18193043
Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1341-5
17463248
Nat Genet. 2008 Jun;40(6):768-75
18454148
Hum Genet. 2008 Dec;124(5):439-50
18850115
Am J Hum Genet. 2004 Jan;74(1):106-20
14681826
Nat Genet. 2008 May;40(5):584-91
18391950
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2009;10:387-406
19715440
Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):661-78
17554300
Nature. 2007 Oct 18;449(7164):851-61
17943122