Assessing sources of inconsistencies in genotypes and their effects on genome-wide association studies with HapMap samples

21Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The discordance in results of independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) indicates the potential for Type I and Type II errors. We assessed the repeatibility of current Affymetrix technologies that support GWAS. Reasonable reproducibility was observed for both raw intensity and the genotypes/copy number variants. We also assessed consistencies between different SNP arrays and between genotype calling algorithms. We observed that the inconsistency in genotypes was generally small at the specimen level. To further examine whether the differences from genotyping and genotype calling are possible sources of variation in GWAS results, an association analysis was applied to compare the associated SNPs. We observed that the inconsistency in genotypes not only propagated to the association analysis, but was amplified in the associated SNPs. Our studies show that inconsistencies between SNP arrays and between genotype calling algorithms are potential sources for the lack of reproducibility in GWAS results. © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hong, H., Shi, L., Su, Z., Ge, W., Jones, W. D., Czika, W., … Tong, W. (2010). Assessing sources of inconsistencies in genotypes and their effects on genome-wide association studies with HapMap samples. Pharmacogenomics Journal, 10(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2010.24

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free