Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Illumina's Infinium SNP BeadChips are extensively used in both small and large-scale genetic studies. A fundamental step in any analysis is the processing of raw allele A and allele B intensities from each SNP into genotype call...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carvalho Benilton S, Liu Ruijie, Ritchie Matthew E, Irizarry Rafael A
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-03-01
Series:BMC Bioinformatics
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/68
_version_ 1811283696742825984
author Carvalho Benilton S
Liu Ruijie
Ritchie Matthew E
Irizarry Rafael A
author_facet Carvalho Benilton S
Liu Ruijie
Ritchie Matthew E
Irizarry Rafael A
author_sort Carvalho Benilton S
collection DOAJ
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Illumina's Infinium SNP BeadChips are extensively used in both small and large-scale genetic studies. A fundamental step in any analysis is the processing of raw allele A and allele B intensities from each SNP into genotype calls (AA, AB, BB). Various algorithms which make use of different statistical models are available for this task. We compare four methods (GenCall, Illuminus, GenoSNP and CRLMM) on data where the true genotypes are known in advance and data from a recently published genome-wide association study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In general, differences in accuracy are relatively small between the methods evaluated, although CRLMM and GenoSNP were found to consistently outperform GenCall. The performance of Illuminus is heavily dependent on sample size, with lower no call rates and improved accuracy as the number of samples available increases. For X chromosome SNPs, methods with sex-dependent models (Illuminus, CRLMM) perform better than methods which ignore gender information (GenCall, GenoSNP). We observe that CRLMM and GenoSNP are more accurate at calling SNPs with low minor allele frequency than GenCall or Illuminus. The sample quality metrics from each of the four methods were found to have a high level of agreement at flagging samples with unusual signal characteristics.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CRLMM, GenoSNP and GenCall can be applied with confidence in studies of any size, as their performance was shown to be invariant to the number of samples available. Illuminus on the other hand requires a larger number of samples to achieve comparable levels of accuracy and its use in smaller studies (50 or fewer individuals) is not recommended.</p>
first_indexed 2024-04-13T02:16:19Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b955cb6947ba49bf98ed79b89b1f79d5
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1471-2105
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-13T02:16:19Z
publishDate 2011-03-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Bioinformatics
spelling doaj.art-b955cb6947ba49bf98ed79b89b1f79d52022-12-22T03:07:08ZengBMCBMC Bioinformatics1471-21052011-03-011216810.1186/1471-2105-12-68Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChipsCarvalho Benilton SLiu RuijieRitchie Matthew EIrizarry Rafael A<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Illumina's Infinium SNP BeadChips are extensively used in both small and large-scale genetic studies. A fundamental step in any analysis is the processing of raw allele A and allele B intensities from each SNP into genotype calls (AA, AB, BB). Various algorithms which make use of different statistical models are available for this task. We compare four methods (GenCall, Illuminus, GenoSNP and CRLMM) on data where the true genotypes are known in advance and data from a recently published genome-wide association study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In general, differences in accuracy are relatively small between the methods evaluated, although CRLMM and GenoSNP were found to consistently outperform GenCall. The performance of Illuminus is heavily dependent on sample size, with lower no call rates and improved accuracy as the number of samples available increases. For X chromosome SNPs, methods with sex-dependent models (Illuminus, CRLMM) perform better than methods which ignore gender information (GenCall, GenoSNP). We observe that CRLMM and GenoSNP are more accurate at calling SNPs with low minor allele frequency than GenCall or Illuminus. The sample quality metrics from each of the four methods were found to have a high level of agreement at flagging samples with unusual signal characteristics.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CRLMM, GenoSNP and GenCall can be applied with confidence in studies of any size, as their performance was shown to be invariant to the number of samples available. Illuminus on the other hand requires a larger number of samples to achieve comparable levels of accuracy and its use in smaller studies (50 or fewer individuals) is not recommended.</p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/68
spellingShingle Carvalho Benilton S
Liu Ruijie
Ritchie Matthew E
Irizarry Rafael A
Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips
BMC Bioinformatics
title Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips
title_full Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips
title_fullStr Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips
title_full_unstemmed Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips
title_short Comparing genotyping algorithms for Illumina's Infinium whole-genome SNP BeadChips
title_sort comparing genotyping algorithms for illumina s infinium whole genome snp beadchips
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/68
work_keys_str_mv AT carvalhobeniltons comparinggenotypingalgorithmsforilluminasinfiniumwholegenomesnpbeadchips
AT liuruijie comparinggenotypingalgorithmsforilluminasinfiniumwholegenomesnpbeadchips
AT ritchiematthewe comparinggenotypingalgorithmsforilluminasinfiniumwholegenomesnpbeadchips
AT irizarryrafaela comparinggenotypingalgorithmsforilluminasinfiniumwholegenomesnpbeadchips