Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study.
An increasing number of genome-wide association (GWA) studies are now using the higher resolution 1000 Genomes Project reference panel (1000G) for imputation, with the expectation that 1000G imputation will lead to the discovery of additional associated loci when compared to HapMap imputation. In or...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5249120?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-747b3e99f9484bed947ca09451fdbbf2 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-747b3e99f9484bed947ca09451fdbbf22020-11-25T01:55:53ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-01121e016774210.1371/journal.pone.0167742Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study.Paul S de VriesMaria Sabater-LlealDaniel I ChasmanStella TrompetTarunveer S AhluwaliaAlexander TeumerMarcus E KleberMing-Huei ChenJie Jin WangJohn R AttiaRiccardo E MarioniMaristella SteriLu-Chen WengRene PoolVera GrossmannJennifer A BrodyCristina VenturiniToshiko TanakaLynda M RoseChristopher OldmeadowJohanna MazurSaonli BasuMattias FrånbergQiong YangSymen LigthartJouke J HottengaAnn RumleyAntonella MulasAnton J M de CraenAnne GrotevendtKent D TaylorGraciela E DelgadoAnnette KifleyLorna M LopezTina L BerentzenMassimo ManginoStefania BandinelliAlanna C MorrisonAnders HamstenGeoffrey ToflerMoniek P M de MaatHarmen H M DraismaGordon D LoweMagdalena ZoledziewskaNaveed SattarKarl J LacknerUwe VölkerBarbara McKnightJie HuangElizabeth G HollidayMark A McEvoyJohn M StarrPirro G HysiDena G HernandezWeihua GuanFernando RivadeneiraWendy L McArdleP Eline SlagboomTanja ZellerBruce M PsatyAndré G UitterlindenEco J C de GeusDavid J StottHarald BinderAlbert HofmanOscar H FrancoJerome I RotterLuigi FerrucciTim D SpectorIan J DearyWinfried MärzAndreas GreinacherPhilipp S WildFrancesco CuccaDorret I BoomsmaHugh WatkinsWeihong TangPaul M RidkerJan W JukemaRodney J ScottPaul MitchellTorben HansenChristopher J O'DonnellNicholas L SmithDavid P StrachanAbbas DehghanAn increasing number of genome-wide association (GWA) studies are now using the higher resolution 1000 Genomes Project reference panel (1000G) for imputation, with the expectation that 1000G imputation will lead to the discovery of additional associated loci when compared to HapMap imputation. In order to assess the improvement of 1000G over HapMap imputation in identifying associated loci, we compared the results of GWA studies of circulating fibrinogen based on the two reference panels. Using both HapMap and 1000G imputation we performed a meta-analysis of 22 studies comprising the same 91,953 individuals. We identified six additional signals using 1000G imputation, while 29 loci were associated using both HapMap and 1000G imputation. One locus identified using HapMap imputation was not significant using 1000G imputation. The genome-wide significance threshold of 5×10-8 is based on the number of independent statistical tests using HapMap imputation, and 1000G imputation may lead to further independent tests that should be corrected for. When using a stricter Bonferroni correction for the 1000G GWA study (P-value < 2.5×10-8), the number of loci significant only using HapMap imputation increased to 4 while the number of loci significant only using 1000G decreased to 5. In conclusion, 1000G imputation enabled the identification of 20% more loci than HapMap imputation, although the advantage of 1000G imputation became less clear when a stricter Bonferroni correction was used. More generally, our results provide insights that are applicable to the implementation of other dense reference panels that are under development.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5249120?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Paul S de Vries Maria Sabater-Lleal Daniel I Chasman Stella Trompet Tarunveer S Ahluwalia Alexander Teumer Marcus E Kleber Ming-Huei Chen Jie Jin Wang John R Attia Riccardo E Marioni Maristella Steri Lu-Chen Weng Rene Pool Vera Grossmann Jennifer A Brody Cristina Venturini Toshiko Tanaka Lynda M Rose Christopher Oldmeadow Johanna Mazur Saonli Basu Mattias Frånberg Qiong Yang Symen Ligthart Jouke J Hottenga Ann Rumley Antonella Mulas Anton J M de Craen Anne Grotevendt Kent D Taylor Graciela E Delgado Annette Kifley Lorna M Lopez Tina L Berentzen Massimo Mangino Stefania Bandinelli Alanna C Morrison Anders Hamsten Geoffrey Tofler Moniek P M de Maat Harmen H M Draisma Gordon D Lowe Magdalena Zoledziewska Naveed Sattar Karl J Lackner Uwe Völker Barbara McKnight Jie Huang Elizabeth G Holliday Mark A McEvoy John M Starr Pirro G Hysi Dena G Hernandez Weihua Guan Fernando Rivadeneira Wendy L McArdle P Eline Slagboom Tanja Zeller Bruce M Psaty André G Uitterlinden Eco J C de Geus David J Stott Harald Binder Albert Hofman Oscar H Franco Jerome I Rotter Luigi Ferrucci Tim D Spector Ian J Deary Winfried März Andreas Greinacher Philipp S Wild Francesco Cucca Dorret I Boomsma Hugh Watkins Weihong Tang Paul M Ridker Jan W Jukema Rodney J Scott Paul Mitchell Torben Hansen Christopher J O'Donnell Nicholas L Smith David P Strachan Abbas Dehghan |
spellingShingle |
Paul S de Vries Maria Sabater-Lleal Daniel I Chasman Stella Trompet Tarunveer S Ahluwalia Alexander Teumer Marcus E Kleber Ming-Huei Chen Jie Jin Wang John R Attia Riccardo E Marioni Maristella Steri Lu-Chen Weng Rene Pool Vera Grossmann Jennifer A Brody Cristina Venturini Toshiko Tanaka Lynda M Rose Christopher Oldmeadow Johanna Mazur Saonli Basu Mattias Frånberg Qiong Yang Symen Ligthart Jouke J Hottenga Ann Rumley Antonella Mulas Anton J M de Craen Anne Grotevendt Kent D Taylor Graciela E Delgado Annette Kifley Lorna M Lopez Tina L Berentzen Massimo Mangino Stefania Bandinelli Alanna C Morrison Anders Hamsten Geoffrey Tofler Moniek P M de Maat Harmen H M Draisma Gordon D Lowe Magdalena Zoledziewska Naveed Sattar Karl J Lackner Uwe Völker Barbara McKnight Jie Huang Elizabeth G Holliday Mark A McEvoy John M Starr Pirro G Hysi Dena G Hernandez Weihua Guan Fernando Rivadeneira Wendy L McArdle P Eline Slagboom Tanja Zeller Bruce M Psaty André G Uitterlinden Eco J C de Geus David J Stott Harald Binder Albert Hofman Oscar H Franco Jerome I Rotter Luigi Ferrucci Tim D Spector Ian J Deary Winfried März Andreas Greinacher Philipp S Wild Francesco Cucca Dorret I Boomsma Hugh Watkins Weihong Tang Paul M Ridker Jan W Jukema Rodney J Scott Paul Mitchell Torben Hansen Christopher J O'Donnell Nicholas L Smith David P Strachan Abbas Dehghan Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Paul S de Vries Maria Sabater-Lleal Daniel I Chasman Stella Trompet Tarunveer S Ahluwalia Alexander Teumer Marcus E Kleber Ming-Huei Chen Jie Jin Wang John R Attia Riccardo E Marioni Maristella Steri Lu-Chen Weng Rene Pool Vera Grossmann Jennifer A Brody Cristina Venturini Toshiko Tanaka Lynda M Rose Christopher Oldmeadow Johanna Mazur Saonli Basu Mattias Frånberg Qiong Yang Symen Ligthart Jouke J Hottenga Ann Rumley Antonella Mulas Anton J M de Craen Anne Grotevendt Kent D Taylor Graciela E Delgado Annette Kifley Lorna M Lopez Tina L Berentzen Massimo Mangino Stefania Bandinelli Alanna C Morrison Anders Hamsten Geoffrey Tofler Moniek P M de Maat Harmen H M Draisma Gordon D Lowe Magdalena Zoledziewska Naveed Sattar Karl J Lackner Uwe Völker Barbara McKnight Jie Huang Elizabeth G Holliday Mark A McEvoy John M Starr Pirro G Hysi Dena G Hernandez Weihua Guan Fernando Rivadeneira Wendy L McArdle P Eline Slagboom Tanja Zeller Bruce M Psaty André G Uitterlinden Eco J C de Geus David J Stott Harald Binder Albert Hofman Oscar H Franco Jerome I Rotter Luigi Ferrucci Tim D Spector Ian J Deary Winfried März Andreas Greinacher Philipp S Wild Francesco Cucca Dorret I Boomsma Hugh Watkins Weihong Tang Paul M Ridker Jan W Jukema Rodney J Scott Paul Mitchell Torben Hansen Christopher J O'Donnell Nicholas L Smith David P Strachan Abbas Dehghan |
author_sort |
Paul S de Vries |
title |
Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study. |
title_short |
Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study. |
title_full |
Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study. |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of HapMap and 1000 Genomes Reference Panels in a Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study. |
title_sort |
comparison of hapmap and 1000 genomes reference panels in a large-scale genome-wide association study. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2017-01-01 |
description |
An increasing number of genome-wide association (GWA) studies are now using the higher resolution 1000 Genomes Project reference panel (1000G) for imputation, with the expectation that 1000G imputation will lead to the discovery of additional associated loci when compared to HapMap imputation. In order to assess the improvement of 1000G over HapMap imputation in identifying associated loci, we compared the results of GWA studies of circulating fibrinogen based on the two reference panels. Using both HapMap and 1000G imputation we performed a meta-analysis of 22 studies comprising the same 91,953 individuals. We identified six additional signals using 1000G imputation, while 29 loci were associated using both HapMap and 1000G imputation. One locus identified using HapMap imputation was not significant using 1000G imputation. The genome-wide significance threshold of 5×10-8 is based on the number of independent statistical tests using HapMap imputation, and 1000G imputation may lead to further independent tests that should be corrected for. When using a stricter Bonferroni correction for the 1000G GWA study (P-value < 2.5×10-8), the number of loci significant only using HapMap imputation increased to 4 while the number of loci significant only using 1000G decreased to 5. In conclusion, 1000G imputation enabled the identification of 20% more loci than HapMap imputation, although the advantage of 1000G imputation became less clear when a stricter Bonferroni correction was used. More generally, our results provide insights that are applicable to the implementation of other dense reference panels that are under development. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5249120?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT paulsdevries comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT mariasabaterlleal comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT danielichasman comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT stellatrompet comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT tarunveersahluwalia comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT alexanderteumer comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT marcusekleber comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT minghueichen comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT jiejinwang comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT johnrattia comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT riccardoemarioni comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT maristellasteri comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT luchenweng comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT renepool comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT veragrossmann comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT jenniferabrody comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT cristinaventurini comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT toshikotanaka comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT lyndamrose comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT christopheroldmeadow comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT johannamazur comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT saonlibasu comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT mattiasfranberg comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT qiongyang comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT symenligthart comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT joukejhottenga comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT annrumley comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT antonellamulas comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT antonjmdecraen comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT annegrotevendt comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT kentdtaylor comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT gracielaedelgado comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT annettekifley comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT lornamlopez comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT tinalberentzen comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT massimomangino comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT stefaniabandinelli comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT alannacmorrison comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT andershamsten comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT geoffreytofler comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT moniekpmdemaat comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT harmenhmdraisma comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT gordondlowe comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT magdalenazoledziewska comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT naveedsattar comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT karljlackner comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT uwevolker comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT barbaramcknight comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT jiehuang comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT elizabethgholliday comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT markamcevoy comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT johnmstarr comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT pirroghysi comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT denaghernandez comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT weihuaguan comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT fernandorivadeneira comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT wendylmcardle comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT pelineslagboom comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT tanjazeller comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT brucempsaty comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT andreguitterlinden comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT ecojcdegeus comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT davidjstott comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT haraldbinder comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT alberthofman comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT oscarhfranco comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT jeromeirotter comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT luigiferrucci comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT timdspector comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT ianjdeary comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT winfriedmarz comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT andreasgreinacher comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT philippswild comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT francescocucca comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT dorretiboomsma comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT hughwatkins comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT weihongtang comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT paulmridker comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT janwjukema comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT rodneyjscott comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT paulmitchell comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT torbenhansen comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT christopherjodonnell comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT nicholaslsmith comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT davidpstrachan comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy AT abbasdehghan comparisonofhapmapand1000genomesreferencepanelsinalargescalegenomewideassociationstudy |
_version_ |
1724982772468023296 |