|
|
This article is part of the supplement: Genetic Analysis Workshop 13: Analysis of Longitudinal Family Data for Complex Diseases and Related Risk Factors . ProceedingsPedigree and genotype errors in the Framingham Heart StudyGerry Brush Department of Genetics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, Texas, USA
BMC Genetics 2003, 4(Suppl 1):S41doi:10.1186/1471-2156-4-S1-S41 The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/4/s1/S41
©
2003 Brush and Almasy; licensee BioMed Central Ltd AbstractThe pedigree and genotype data from the Framingham Heart Study were examined for errors. Errors in 21 of 329 pedigrees were detected with the program PREST, and of these the errors in 16 pedigrees were resolved. Genotyping errors were then detected with SIMWALK2. Five Mendelian errors were found following the pedigree corrections. Double-recombinant errors were more common, with 142 being detected at mistyping probabilities of 0.25 or greater. BackgroundBecause linkage analysis observes the co-segregation of marker alleles and phenotype, there is a concern that errors in pedigrees or genotypes could result in false-negative or false-positive results. The use of Genetic Analysis Workshop (GAW) data to examine the presence and nature of pedigree errors is not new [1-3]. In this exercise we detect and describe the pedigree and genotyping errors in the GAW13 Framingham Heart Study data. MethodsPedigree error detection and correctionThe program PREST [4] was used to detect pedigree errors. PREST estimates the probabilities, p0, p1, and p2 of two individuals sharing 0, 1, and 2 alleles identically by descent (IBD), respectively. We calculated this over all of the relationship pairs known to PREST (parent-offspring, full-sibs, half-sibs, avuncular, first-cousins, grandparent-grandchild, half-avuncular, half-first cousin, half-sib plus first-cousin, monozygotic twins, and unrelated) within and between pedigrees. Pedigree errors were first screened with PREST's analytical tests: conditional estimated identity by descent (EIBD), adjusted identity by state (AIBS), and IBS, in that order and where applicable, at α = 0.0001, to focus on the more significant problems. This index pair and their relatives were then examined more thoroughly using PREST's accompanying program ALTERTEST that can test two individuals for each of the 11 relationship classes. PREST comes with an R script written by Dan Weeks to plot the IBD estimation of a single relative pair on a relationship triangle [5]. We modified this program to provide a scatter diagram of IBDs on the triangle. The result is an informative graphical summary of the pedigree errors in the sample. Pedigrees were drawn with PEDIGREE/DRAW [6]. Genotyping error detection and correctionGenotyping errors are detected using SIMWALK [7,8]. SIMWALK2 applies a Markov-chain Monte Carlo method to data from the pedigree, population allele frequencies, and a genetic map to assign probabilities of mistyping for each genotype. Because this is a computationally intensive exercise, we examined genotyping errors only on chromosome 7. We ran SIMWALK2 in two phases. In the first phase, Mendelian errors were detected and corrected independently for each marker. Marker genotypes were blanked (changed to a missing value) for all probabilities of mistyping above a given threshold. The threshold was chosen conservatively, i.e., to blank no more genotypes for a marker than necessary to calculate a likelihood for that marker. The mistyping probability was decremented from 1.0 until a calculable likelihood was reached. In the second phase, genotypes that suggest improbable double recombination events were blanked. Mistyping probabilities were assigned using the genetic maps supplied with the GAW13 data. In this phase, the proportion of genotypes potentially blanked at a series of thresholds is plotted to provide a visual guide for choosing a threshold. Following the corrections of the pedigree and genotype data, we recalculated for comparison, the chromosome 7 genetic map using MULTIMAP/CRIMAP [9,10]. ResultsPedigree errorsScatter diagrams of the estimated IBD probabilities p0, p1, and p2 on relationship triangles are shown in Figure 1. These reveal almost no full-sibling errors. A few avuncular and first-cousin relationships are likely to be unrelated, and a great many unrelated individuals are likely in fact to be related, some being parent-offspring pairs.
Consistent observations among relatives were required before changes were made to the pedigrees. For example, the four unrelated pairs that are undoubtedly parent-offspring display the required parent-offspring relationships with a female in a disconnected pedigree, as determined by ALTERTEST and illustrated in Figure 2. All four were unrelated to the originally designated mother, now the stepmother. None of the other alternative tests suggested any other arrangement.
In another example shown in Figure 3, two pedigrees were joined through two ungenotyped half-sibs, detected through consistent half-avuncular and half-first cousin relationships.
These simple examples belie the difficulties of correcting pedigree errors. In the Framingham data we were able to resolve the errors in 16 of 21 pedigrees, out of 329 pedigrees in total. The five unresolved pedigrees displayed patterns of errors that contradicted all testable alternative hypotheses, and were left unchanged. Genotyping errorsFive Mendelian errors were revealed following the pedigree changes. The distribution of mistyping probabilities for the double-recombinant detection is shown in Figure 4. We chose a threshold probability of 0.25 to define erroneous genotypes, so as to blank without a too great loss of data. With this threshold, 142 genotypes were blanked.
Following the blanking, a new genetic map for the 21 markers on chromosome 7 was estimated using MULTIMAP/CRIMAP [9,10]. The new map was 167 cM in length, or 24 cM shorter than the map provided with the data. In comparison, the length of the corresponding Marshfield map is 175 cM [11]. DiscussionThe Framingham data were relatively free of pedigree errors, particularly those involving close relatives. The most frequent type of error involved individuals in the upper generations, detected through their descendants due to the lack of genotype data for the ancestors. These errors were frequently corrected through the joining of disconnected pedigrees. It is difficult to generalize these findings to other populations in which the types and distribution of pedigree errors may be quite different. Presumably in Framingham, kinship terms are usually given a biological interpretation. In other populations where this is not strictly the case, serious errors would seem possible. The small number of Mendelian genotyping errors in the Framingham data that had not been detected previously became evident only following the pedigree corrections. Genotype errors that imply unlikely double recombination events were more common, the exact number depending on a definition of probable mistyping. AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to Linda Freeman-Shade (SFBR) for providing PEDSYS [12] versions of PREST (PREPREST) and SIMWALK2 (PRESWALK), thus making these programs very easy to use, and Thomas Dyer (SFBR) for support programs for use with SIMWALK2. This research was partially funded by NIH grant MH59490. References
Have something to say? Post a comment on this article! |
|
|
|
 |  | Log on / register Feedback | Support | My details |
on Google Scholar
author email
corresponding author email
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.|
|
| © 1999-2009 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media. |