The hazards of genotype imputation in chromosomal regions under selection: A case study using the Lactase gene region

Genotype imputation in human genomic studies

Imputation is a method that supplies missing information about genetic variants that could not be directly genotyped with DNA microarrays or low-coverage sequencing. Imputation plays a critical role in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). It leads to a significant increase in the number of studied variants, which improves the resolution of the method and enhances the comparability of data obtained in different cohorts and/or by using different technologies, which is important for conducting meta-analyses. When performing imputation, genotype information from the study sample, in which only part of the genetic variants are known, is complemented using the standard (reference) sample, which has more complete genotype data (most often the results of whole-genome sequencing). Imputation has become an integral part of human genomic research due to the benefits it provides and the increasing availability of imputation tools and reference sample data. This review focuses on imputation in human genomic research. The first section of the review provides a description of technologies for obtaining information about human genotypes and characteristics of these types of data. The second section describes the imputation methodology, lists the stages of its implementation and the corresponding programs, provides a description of the most popular reference panels and methods for assessing the quality of imputation. The review concludes with examples of the use of imputation in genomic studies of samples from Russia. This review shows the importance of imputation, provides information on how to carry it out, and systematizes the results of its application using Russian samples.

The hazards of genotype imputation when mapping disease susceptibility variants

BACKGROUND

The cost-free increase in statistical power of using imputation to infer missing genotypes is undoubtedly appealing, but is it hazard-free? This case study of three type-2 diabetes (T2D) loci demonstrates that it is not; it sheds light on why this is so and raises concerns as to the shortcomings of imputation at disease loci, where haplotypes differ between cases and reference panel.

RESULTS

T2D-associated variants were previously identified using targeted sequencing. We removed these significantly associated SNPs and used neighbouring SNPs to infer them by imputation. We compared imputed with observed genotypes, examined the altered pattern of T2D-SNP association, and investigated the cause of imputation errors by studying haplotype structure. Most T2D variants were incorrectly imputed with a low density of scaffold SNPs, but the majority failed to impute even at high density, despite obtaining high certainty scores. Missing and discordant imputation errors, which were observed disproportionately for the risk alleles, produced monomorphic genotype calls or false-negative associations. We show that haplotypes carrying risk alleles are considerably more common in the T2D cases than the reference panel, for all loci.

CONCLUSIONS

Imputation is not a panacea for fine mapping, nor for meta-analysing multiple GWAS based on different arrays and different populations. A total of 80% of the SNPs we have tested are not included in array platforms, explaining why these and other such associated variants may previously have been missed. Regardless of the choice of software and reference haplotypes, imputation drives genotype inference towards the reference panel, introducing errors at disease loci.

An alternative method of SNP inclusion to develop a generalized polygenic risk score analysis across Alzheimer's disease cohorts

Introduction

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have great clinical potential for detecting late-onset diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), allowing the identification of those most at risk years before the symptoms present. Although many studies use various and complicated machine learning algorithms to determine the best discriminatory values for PRSs, few studies look at the commonality of the Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) utilized in these models.

Methods

This investigation focussed on identifying SNPs that tag blocks of linkage disequilibrium across the genome, allowing for a generalized PRS model across cohorts and genotyping panels. PRS modeling was conducted on five AD development cohorts, with the best discriminatory models exploring for a commonality of linkage disequilibrium clumps. Clumps that contributed to the discrimination of cases from controls that occurred in multiple cohorts were used to create a generalized model of PRS, which was then tested in the five development cohorts and three further AD cohorts.

Results

The model developed provided a discriminability accuracy average of over 70% in multiple AD cohorts and included variants of several well-known AD risk genes.

Discussion

A key element of devising a polygenic risk score that can be used in the clinical setting is one that has consistency in the SNPs that are used to calculate the score; this study demonstrates that using a model based on commonality of association findings rather than meta-analyses may prove useful.