Cargando…

NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association

RNA sequence data are commonly summarized as read counts. By contrast, so far there is no alternative to genotype calling for investigating the relationship between genetic variants determined by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and a phenotype of interest. Here we propose and evaluate the direct an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: González Silos, Rosa, Fischer, Christine, Lorenzo Bermejo, Justo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Research Network of Computational and Structural Biotechnology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35891781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.07.016
_version_ 1784749793950564352
author González Silos, Rosa
Fischer, Christine
Lorenzo Bermejo, Justo
author_facet González Silos, Rosa
Fischer, Christine
Lorenzo Bermejo, Justo
author_sort González Silos, Rosa
collection PubMed
description RNA sequence data are commonly summarized as read counts. By contrast, so far there is no alternative to genotype calling for investigating the relationship between genetic variants determined by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and a phenotype of interest. Here we propose and evaluate the direct analysis of allele counts for genetic association tests. Specifically, we assess the potential advantage of the ratio of alternative allele counts to the total number of reads aligned at a specific position of the genome (coverage) over called genotypes. We simulated association studies based on NGS data from HapMap individuals. Genotype quality scores and allele counts were simulated using NGS data from the Personal Genome Project. Real data from the 1000 Genomes Project was also used to compare the two competing approaches. The average proportions of probability values lower or equal to 0.05 amounted to 0.0496 for called genotypes and 0.0485 for the ratio of alternative allele counts to coverage in the null scenario, and to 0.69 for called genotypes and 0.75 for the ratio of alternative allele counts to coverage in the alternative scenario (9% power increase). The advantage in statistical power of the novel approach increased with decreasing coverage, with decreasing genotype quality and with decreasing allele frequency – 124% power increase for variants with a minor allele frequency lower than 0.05. We provide computer code in R to implement the novel approach, which does not preclude the use of complementary data quality filters before or after identification of the most promising association signals. AUTHOR SUMMARY: Genetic association tests usually rely on called genotypes. We postulate here that the direct analysis of allele counts from sequence data improves the quality of statistical inference. To evaluate this hypothesis, we investigate simulated and real data using distinct statistical approaches. We demonstrate that association tests based on allele counts rather than called genotypes achieve higher statistical power with controlled type I error rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9294184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Research Network of Computational and Structural Biotechnology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92941842022-07-25 NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association González Silos, Rosa Fischer, Christine Lorenzo Bermejo, Justo Comput Struct Biotechnol J Short Communication RNA sequence data are commonly summarized as read counts. By contrast, so far there is no alternative to genotype calling for investigating the relationship between genetic variants determined by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and a phenotype of interest. Here we propose and evaluate the direct analysis of allele counts for genetic association tests. Specifically, we assess the potential advantage of the ratio of alternative allele counts to the total number of reads aligned at a specific position of the genome (coverage) over called genotypes. We simulated association studies based on NGS data from HapMap individuals. Genotype quality scores and allele counts were simulated using NGS data from the Personal Genome Project. Real data from the 1000 Genomes Project was also used to compare the two competing approaches. The average proportions of probability values lower or equal to 0.05 amounted to 0.0496 for called genotypes and 0.0485 for the ratio of alternative allele counts to coverage in the null scenario, and to 0.69 for called genotypes and 0.75 for the ratio of alternative allele counts to coverage in the alternative scenario (9% power increase). The advantage in statistical power of the novel approach increased with decreasing coverage, with decreasing genotype quality and with decreasing allele frequency – 124% power increase for variants with a minor allele frequency lower than 0.05. We provide computer code in R to implement the novel approach, which does not preclude the use of complementary data quality filters before or after identification of the most promising association signals. AUTHOR SUMMARY: Genetic association tests usually rely on called genotypes. We postulate here that the direct analysis of allele counts from sequence data improves the quality of statistical inference. To evaluate this hypothesis, we investigate simulated and real data using distinct statistical approaches. We demonstrate that association tests based on allele counts rather than called genotypes achieve higher statistical power with controlled type I error rates. Research Network of Computational and Structural Biotechnology 2022-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9294184/ /pubmed/35891781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.07.016 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Short Communication
González Silos, Rosa
Fischer, Christine
Lorenzo Bermejo, Justo
NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
title NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
title_full NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
title_fullStr NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
title_full_unstemmed NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
title_short NGS allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
title_sort ngs allele counts versus called genotypes for testing genetic association
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35891781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.07.016
work_keys_str_mv AT gonzalezsilosrosa ngsallelecountsversuscalledgenotypesfortestinggeneticassociation
AT fischerchristine ngsallelecountsversuscalledgenotypesfortestinggeneticassociation
AT lorenzobermejojusto ngsallelecountsversuscalledgenotypesfortestinggeneticassociation