» Articles » PMID: 16612103

Effects of Differential Genotyping Error Rate on the Type I Error Probability of Case-control Studies

Overview
Journal Hum Hered
Specialty Genetics
Date 2006 Apr 14
PMID 16612103
Citations 38
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: It is well known that genotyping error adversely affects the power of genetic case-control association studies but there is little research on its effects on type I error, and none that has addressed possible differences in genotype error rates between cases and controls.

Methods: We used simulations to examine the influence of genotyping error on the type I error probability given by case-control studies. The effect of genotyping error on the magnitude of type I error was explored for a single marker of varying minor allele frequency (MAF), and for haplotypic tests based on two markers with varying MAF and linkage disequilibrium (LD) measure r(2).

Results: We show that even with low genotyping error rates (<0.01), systematic differences in the error rate between samples can result in type I error rates substantially above 0.05. The effect was maximal for markers with small MAF, markers in strong LD, and where a common allele is more frequently misclassified as a rare allele than vice versa. The problem was also exacerbated by the use of large samples.

Conclusions: Our results show that small differential genotyping error rates between cases and controls pose significant problems for association analyses. Differential genotyping error rates are particularly likely to arise where genotype data are combined from multiple sites, or where case genotypes are examined against archived reference population cohort genotypes that are being generated in several countries. Although these strategies may be necessary to obtain adequately powered samples, our data show the importance of stringent quality control. Furthermore, associations based on rare haplotypes should be treated with caution.

Citing Articles

Evaluating human autosomal loci for sexually antagonistic viability selection in two large biobanks.

Kasimatis K, Abraham A, Ralph P, Kern A, Capra J, Phillips P Genetics. 2021; 217(1):1-10.

PMID: 33683357 PMC: 8045711. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/iyaa015.


SNP genotype calling and quality control for multi-batch-based studies.

Seo S, Park K, Lee J, Choi K, Lee K, Won S Genes Genomics. 2019; 41(8):927-939.

PMID: 31062262 DOI: 10.1007/s13258-019-00827-5.


Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study.

Hou L, Sun N, Mane S, Sayward F, Rajeevan N, Cheung K Genet Epidemiol. 2016; 41(2):152-162.

PMID: 28019059 PMC: 5604789. DOI: 10.1002/gepi.22027.


A POWERFUL METHOD FOR INCLUDING GENOTYPE UNCERTAINTY IN TESTS OF HARDY-WEINBERG EQUILIBRIUM.

Beck A, Luedtke A, Liu K, Tintle N Pac Symp Biocomput. 2016; 22:368-379.

PMID: 27896990 PMC: 5149397. DOI: 10.1142/9789813207813_0035.


Starch phosphorylation in potato tubers is influenced by allelic variation in the genes encoding glucan water dikinase, starch branching enzymes I and II, and starch synthase III.

Carpenter M, Joyce N, Genet R, Cooper R, Murray S, Noble A Front Plant Sci. 2015; 6:143.

PMID: 25806042 PMC: 4354307. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00143.