GeneticsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Distinct error rates for reference and non-reference genotypes estimated by pedigree analysis
Abstract
Errors in genotype calling can have perverse effects on genetic analyses, confounding association studies and obscuring rare variants. Analyses now routinely incorporate error rates to control for spurious findings. However, reliable estimates of the error rate can be difficult to obtain because of their variance between studies. Most studies also report only a single estimate of the error rate even though genotypes can be miscalled in more than one way. Here, we report a method for estimating the rates at which different types of genotyping errors occur at biallelic loci using pedigree information. Our method identifies potential genotyping errors by exploiting instances where the haplotypic phase has not been faithfully transmitted. The expected frequency of inconsistent phase depends on the combination of genotypes in a pedigree and the probability of miscalling each genotype. We develop a model that uses the differences in these frequencies to estimate rates for different types of genotype error. Simulations show that our method accurately estimates these error rates in a variety of scenarios. We apply this method to a dataset from the whole-genome sequencing of owl monkeys (Aotus nancymaae) in three-generation pedigrees. We find significant differences between estimates for different types of genotyping error, with the most common being homozygous reference sites miscalled as heterozygous and vice versa. The approach we describe is applicable to any set of genotypes where haplotypic phase can reliably be called, and should prove useful in helping to control for false discoveries.
- organism: non-human primate
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: variant calling
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 13
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Field percentile
- top 25%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Genotype error biases trio-based estimates of haplotype phase accuracy
Brian L. Browning, Sharon R. Browning·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2022
- Simultaneous estimation of genotype error and uncalled deletion rates in whole genome sequence data
Nobuaki Masaki, Sharon R. Browning, Brian L. Browning·PLoS GeneticsPeer-reviewed·May 24, 2024
- Accurate Phasing of Pedigree Genotypes Using Whole Genome Sequence Data
August N. Blackburn, Mark Z. Kos, … H.H.H. Göring·bioRxiv·Jun 9, 2017
- A Benchmark of Modern Statistical Phasing Methods
Andrew T. Beck, Hyun Min Kang, Sebastian Zöllner·bioRxiv·Jun 24, 2025
- Discordant calls across genotype discovery approaches elucidate variants with systematic errors
Elizabeth G. Atkinson, Mykyta Artomov, … Mark J. Daly·Genome ResearchPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2023
- Performing Parentage Analysis for Polysomic Inheritances Based on Allelic Phenotypes
Kang Huang, Gwendolyn M. Huber, … Baoguo Li·G3 Genes Genomes GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 11, 2021