Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Quality assessment for different haplotyping methods and GWAS sensitivity to phasing errors

Giovanni Busonera, Marco Cogoni, Gianluigi Zanetti
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/015669
Giovanni Busonera
Distributed Computing Group, CRS4, Pula, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marco Cogoni
Distributed Computing Group, CRS4, Pula, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gianluigi Zanetti
Distributed Computing Group, CRS4, Pula, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

In this report we present a multimarker association tool (Flash) based on a novel algorithm to generate haplotypes from raw genotype data. It belongs to the entropy minimization class of methods [4, 7] and is composed of a two stage deterministic - heuristic part and of a optional stochastic optimization. This algorithm is able to scale up well to handle huge datasets with faster performance than the competing technologies such as BEAGLE[5] and MACH[10] while maintaining a comparable accuracy. A quality assessment of the results is carried out by comparing the switch error. Finally, the haplotypes are used to perform a haplotype-based Genome-wide Association Study (GWAS). The association results are compared with a multimarker and a single SNP association test performed with Plink [12]. Our experiments confirm that the multimarker association test can be more powerful than the single SNP one as stated in the literature. Moreover, Flash and Plink show similar results for the multimarker association test but Flash speeds up the computation time of about an order of magnitude using 5 SNP size haplotypes.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 24, 2015.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality assessment for different haplotyping methods and GWAS sensitivity to phasing errors
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Quality assessment for different haplotyping methods and GWAS sensitivity to phasing errors
Giovanni Busonera, Marco Cogoni, Gianluigi Zanetti
bioRxiv 015669; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/015669
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Quality assessment for different haplotyping methods and GWAS sensitivity to phasing errors
Giovanni Busonera, Marco Cogoni, Gianluigi Zanetti
bioRxiv 015669; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/015669

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4395)
  • Biochemistry (9619)
  • Bioengineering (7111)
  • Bioinformatics (24915)
  • Biophysics (12642)
  • Cancer Biology (9979)
  • Cell Biology (14388)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7968)
  • Ecology (12135)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16010)
  • Genetics (10938)
  • Genomics (14764)
  • Immunology (9889)
  • Microbiology (23719)
  • Molecular Biology (9493)
  • Neuroscience (50965)
  • Paleontology (370)
  • Pathology (1544)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2688)
  • Physiology (4031)
  • Plant Biology (8685)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1512)
  • Synthetic Biology (2403)
  • Systems Biology (6446)
  • Zoology (1346)