title: Impact of pre-imputation SNP-filtering on genotype imputation results.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Imputation of partially missing or unobserved genotypes is an indispensable tool for SNP data analyses. However, research and understanding of the impact of initial SNP-data quality control on imputation results is still limited. In this paper, we aim to evaluate the effect of different strategies of pre-imputation quality filtering on the performance of the widely used imputation algorithms MaCH and IMPUTE.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We considered three scenarios: imputation of partially missing genotypes with usage of an external reference panel, without usage of an external reference panel, as well as imputation of completely un-typed SNPs using an external reference panel. We first created various datasets applying different SNP quality filters and masking certain percentages of randomly selected high-quality SNPs. We imputed these SNPs and compared the results between the different filtering scenarios by using established and newly proposed measures of imputation quality. While the established measures assess certainty of imputation results, our newly proposed measures focus on the agreement with true genotypes. These measures showed that pre-imputation SNP-filtering might be detrimental regarding imputation quality. Moreover, the strongest drivers of imputation quality were in general the burden of missingness and the number of SNPs used for imputation. We also found that using a reference panel always improves imputation quality of partially missing genotypes. MaCH performed slightly better than IMPUTE2 in most of our scenarios. Again, these results were more pronounced when using our newly defined measures of imputation quality.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Even a moderate filtering has a detrimental effect on the imputation quality. Therefore little or no SNP filtering prior to imputation appears to be the best strategy for imputing small to moderately sized datasets. Our results also showed that for these datasets, MaCH performs slightly better than IMPUTE2 in most scenarios at the cost of increased computing time.
authors.forename: Nab Raj
authors.initials: NR
authors.lastname: Roshyara
authors.forename: Holger
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kirsten
authors.forename: Katrin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Horn
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Ahnert
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Scholz
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D002892:Chromosomes, Human, Pair 22 / Q000235:genetics; D005260:Female; D005838:Genotype; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D020641:Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; D012984:Software
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Mar 15;5(3):e9697
references.pmid: 20300623
references.citation: Stat Med. 2010 Sep 30;29(22):2347-58
references.pmid: 20641143
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Sep 16;12(10):703-14
references.pmid: 21921926
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Nov;81(5):1084-97
references.pmid: 17924348
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2012 May;20(5):572-6
references.pmid: 22189269
references.citation: Hum Genet. 2008 Dec;124(5):439-50
references.pmid: 18850115
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 May;19(5):610-4
references.pmid: 21267008
references.citation: Genet Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;35(2):102-10
references.pmid: 21254217
references.citation: Mol Ecol Resour. 2010 May;10(3):564-7
references.pmid: 21565059
references.citation: Hum Mol Genet. 2008 Oct 15;17(R2):R122-8
references.pmid: 18852200
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep;81(3):559-75
references.pmid: 17701901
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2006 Aug;38(8):904-9
references.pmid: 16862161
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):906-13
references.pmid: 17572673
references.citation: Psychiatr Genet. 2012 Aug;22(4):216-7
references.pmid: 21934641
references.citation: PLoS One. 2014 Jul 22;9(7):e97589
references.pmid: 25050709
references.citation: Nature. 2010 Oct 28;467(7319):1061-73
references.pmid: 20981092
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2012 Feb;20(2):224-9
references.pmid: 21897444
references.citation: Hum Genomics. 2009 Jul;3(4):371-80
references.pmid: 19706367
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2012 Jul 22;44(8):955-9
references.pmid: 22820512
references.citation: PLoS Genet. 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000529
references.pmid: 19543373
references.citation: Genet Epidemiol. 2010 Dec;34(8):816-34
references.pmid: 21058334
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2006 Apr;78(4):629-44
references.pmid: 16532393
references.citation: Nat Protoc. 2010 Sep;5(9):1564-73
references.pmid: 21085122
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2007 Jul;39(7):815-6
references.pmid: 17597769
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Jul;11(7):499-511
references.pmid: 20517342
references.citation: Hum Genet. 2009 Mar;125(2):163-71
references.pmid: 19089453
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: Eur J Hum Genet. 2012 Jul;20(7):801-5
references.pmid: 22293688