Comparing low-pass sequencing and genotyping for trait mapping in pharmacogenetics.
Genotype imputation
Low-pass sequencing
Pharmacogenetics
Trait mapping
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2021
20 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
06
05
2020
accepted:
05
03
2021
entrez:
21
3
2021
pubmed:
22
3
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low pass sequencing has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to genotyping arrays to identify genetic variants that influence multifactorial traits in humans. For common diseases this typically has required both large sample sizes and comprehensive variant discovery. Genotyping arrays are also routinely used to perform pharmacogenetic (PGx) experiments where sample sizes are likely to be significantly smaller, but clinically relevant effect sizes likely to be larger. To assess how low pass sequencing would compare to array based genotyping for PGx we compared a low-pass assay (in which 1x coverage or less of a target genome is sequenced) along with software for genotype imputation to standard approaches. We sequenced 79 individuals to 1x genome coverage and genotyped the same samples on the Affymetrix Axiom Biobank Precision Medicine Research Array (PMRA). We then down-sampled the sequencing data to 0.8x, 0.6x, and 0.4x coverage, and performed imputation. Both the genotype data and the sequencing data were further used to impute human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes for all samples. We compared the sequencing data and the genotyping array data in terms of four metrics: overall concordance, concordance at single nucleotide polymorphisms in pharmacogenetics-related genes, concordance in imputed HLA genotypes, and imputation r These results indicate that low-pass sequencing to a depth above 0.4x coverage attains higher power for association studies when compared to the PMRA and should be considered as a competitive alternative to genotyping arrays for trait mapping in pharmacogenetics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Low pass sequencing has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to genotyping arrays to identify genetic variants that influence multifactorial traits in humans. For common diseases this typically has required both large sample sizes and comprehensive variant discovery. Genotyping arrays are also routinely used to perform pharmacogenetic (PGx) experiments where sample sizes are likely to be significantly smaller, but clinically relevant effect sizes likely to be larger.
RESULTS
RESULTS
To assess how low pass sequencing would compare to array based genotyping for PGx we compared a low-pass assay (in which 1x coverage or less of a target genome is sequenced) along with software for genotype imputation to standard approaches. We sequenced 79 individuals to 1x genome coverage and genotyped the same samples on the Affymetrix Axiom Biobank Precision Medicine Research Array (PMRA). We then down-sampled the sequencing data to 0.8x, 0.6x, and 0.4x coverage, and performed imputation. Both the genotype data and the sequencing data were further used to impute human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes for all samples. We compared the sequencing data and the genotyping array data in terms of four metrics: overall concordance, concordance at single nucleotide polymorphisms in pharmacogenetics-related genes, concordance in imputed HLA genotypes, and imputation r
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These results indicate that low-pass sequencing to a depth above 0.4x coverage attains higher power for association studies when compared to the PMRA and should be considered as a competitive alternative to genotyping arrays for trait mapping in pharmacogenetics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33743587
doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-07508-2
pii: 10.1186/s12864-021-07508-2
pmc: PMC7981957
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
197Références
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60
pubmed: 19451168
Nat Genet. 2016 Oct;48(10):1279-83
pubmed: 27548312
J Med Genet. 2018 Nov;55(11):735-743
pubmed: 30061371
Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2017 Mar;27(3):89-100
pubmed: 27984508
Genome Res. 2021 Feb 3;:
pubmed: 33536225
Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):2213-33
pubmed: 14704198
Curr Biol. 2015 Dec 21;25(24):3170-7
pubmed: 26687620
Nature. 2015 Oct 1;526(7571):68-74
pubmed: 26432245
Nat Genet. 2012 May 20;44(6):631-5
pubmed: 22610117
JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302(8):849-57
pubmed: 19706858
N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 21;359(8):789-99
pubmed: 18650507
Nat Genet. 2012 Jul 22;44(8):955-9
pubmed: 22820512
Bioinformatics. 2019 Aug 1;35(15):2555-2561
pubmed: 30576415
Genet Med. 2016 Sep;18(9):940-8
pubmed: 26820068
Nature. 2015 Jul 30;523(7562):588-91
pubmed: 26176920
Pharmacogenomics J. 2014 Apr;14(2):192-200
pubmed: 23712092
Genome Biol. 2019 Nov 28;20(1):257
pubmed: 31779668
Blood. 2008 Apr 15;111(8):4106-12
pubmed: 18250228