TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of genotyping error in model-free linkage analysis using microsatellite or single-nucleotide polymorphism marker maps
AU - Thompson, Cheryl L.
AU - Baechle, Dan
AU - Lu, Qing
AU - Mathew, George
AU - Song, Yeunjoo
AU - Iyengar, Sudha K.
AU - Gray-McGuire, Courtney
AU - Goddard, Katrina A.B.
PY - 2005/12/30
Y1 - 2005/12/30
N2 - Errors while genotyping are inevitable and can reduce the power to detect linkage. However, does genotyping error have the same impact on linkage results for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and microsatellite (MS) marker maps? To evaluate this question we detected genotyping errors that are consistent with Mendelian inheritance using large changes in multipoint identity-by-descent sharing in neighboring markers. Only a small fraction of Mendelian consistent errors were detectable (e.g., 18% of MS and 2.4% of SNP genotyping errors). More SNP genotyping errors are Mendelian consistent compared to MS genotyping errors, so genotyping error may have a greater impact on linkage results using SNP marker maps. We also evaluated the effect of genotyping error on the power and type I error rate using simulated nuclear families with missing parents under 0, 0.14, and 2.8% genotyping error rates. In the presence of genotyping error, we found that the power to detect a true linkage signal was greater for SNP (75%) than MS (67%) marker maps, although there were also slightly more false-positive signals using SNP marker maps (5 compared with 3 for MS). Finally, we evaluated the usefulness of accounting for genotyping error in the SNP data using a likelihood-based approach, which restores some of the power that is lost when genotyping error is introduced.
AB - Errors while genotyping are inevitable and can reduce the power to detect linkage. However, does genotyping error have the same impact on linkage results for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and microsatellite (MS) marker maps? To evaluate this question we detected genotyping errors that are consistent with Mendelian inheritance using large changes in multipoint identity-by-descent sharing in neighboring markers. Only a small fraction of Mendelian consistent errors were detectable (e.g., 18% of MS and 2.4% of SNP genotyping errors). More SNP genotyping errors are Mendelian consistent compared to MS genotyping errors, so genotyping error may have a greater impact on linkage results using SNP marker maps. We also evaluated the effect of genotyping error on the power and type I error rate using simulated nuclear families with missing parents under 0, 0.14, and 2.8% genotyping error rates. In the presence of genotyping error, we found that the power to detect a true linkage signal was greater for SNP (75%) than MS (67%) marker maps, although there were also slightly more false-positive signals using SNP marker maps (5 compared with 3 for MS). Finally, we evaluated the usefulness of accounting for genotyping error in the SNP data using a likelihood-based approach, which restores some of the power that is lost when genotyping error is introduced.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=30344464579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=30344464579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S153
DO - 10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S153
M3 - Article
C2 - 16451614
AN - SCOPUS:30344464579
SN - 1471-2156
VL - 6
JO - BMC Genetics
JF - BMC Genetics
IS - SUPPL.1
M1 - S153
ER -