4.3 Article

PreCimp: Pre-collapsing imputation approach increases imputation accuracy of rare variants in terms of collapsed variables

期刊

GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 41-50

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.22020

关键词

genotyping; imputation; next generation sequencing; population genetics; SNPs

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2013M3A9C4078158]
  2. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI15C2165]
  3. Korea National Institute of Health [2014-NI73001-00]
  4. Korea Health Promotion Institute [2014-NI73001-00] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Imputation is widely used for obtaining information about rare variants. However, one issue concerning imputation is the low accuracy of imputed rare variants as the inaccurate imputed rare variants may distort the results of region-based association tests. Therefore, we developed a pre-collapsing imputation method (PreCimp) to improve the accuracy of imputation by using collapsed variables. Briefly, collapsed variables are generated using rare variants in the reference panel, and a new reference panel is constructed by inserting pre-collapsed variables into the original reference panel. Following imputation analysis provides the imputed genotypes of the collapsed variables. We demonstrated the performance of PreCimp on 5,349 genotyped samples using a Korean population specific reference panel including 848 samples of exome sequencing, Affymetrix 5.0, and exome chip. PreCimp outperformed a traditional post-collapsing method that collapses imputed variants after single rare variant imputation analysis. Compared with the results of post-collapsing method, PreCimp approach was shown to relatively increase imputation accuracy about 3.4-6.3% when dosage r(2) is between 0.6 and 0.8, 10.9-16.1% when dosage r(2) is between 0.4 and 0.6, and 21.4 approximate to 129.4% when dosage r(2) is below 0.4.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据