Cited by 1,843Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

MaCH: using sequence and genotype data to estimate haplotypes and unobserved genotypes

Open access
Li, Yun, Willer, Cristen J., Ding, Jun, Scheet, Paul, Abecasis, Gonçalo R.·2010·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) can identify common alleles that contribute to complex disease susceptibility. Despite the large number of SNPs assessed in each study, the effects of most common SNPs must be evaluated indirectly using either genotyped markers or haplotypes thereof as proxies. We have previously implemented a computationally efficient Markov Chain framework for genotype imputation and haplotyping in the freely available MaCH software package. The approach describes sampled chromosomes as mosaics of each other and uses available genotype and shotgun sequence data to estimate unobserved genotypes and haplotypes, together with useful measures of the quality of these estimates. Our approach is already widely used to facilitate comparison of results across studies as well as meta‐analyses of GWAS. Here, we use simulations and experimental genotypes to evaluate its accuracy and utility, considering choices of genotyping panels, reference panel configurations, and designs where genotyping is replaced with shotgun sequencing. Importantly, we show that genotype imputation not only facilitates cross study analyses but also increases power of genetic association studies. We show that genotype imputation of common variants using HapMap haplotypes as a reference is very accurate using either genome‐wide SNP data or smaller amounts of data typical in fine‐mapping studies. Furthermore, we show the approach is applicable in a variety of populations. Finally, we illustrate how association analyses of unobserved variants will benefit from ongoing advances such as larger HapMap reference panels and whole genome shotgun sequencing technologies.Genet. Epidemiol. 34: 816‐834, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gepi.20533

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Each study was subject to GWAS quality control filters customized taking into account study-specific features and standardized to the HapMap reference panel and statistical genotype imputation.

    “Each study was first subject to GWAS quality control filters (customized taking into account study specific features21 as detailed in Supplementary Table 2) and standardized to the HapMap reference panel and statistical genotype imputation22–25.”
  • Imputed genotypes were inferred with MaCH 1.0.16 using combined CEU and YRI haplotypes as reference; we report SNPs whose predicted R∧2 between true and imputed genotypes >0.80.

    “Imputed genotypes were inferred with the MaCH 1.0.16 package [52] using combined CEU and YRI haplotypes as reference; we report SNPs whose predicted R∧2 between true and imputed genotypes >0.80.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stephens M Scheet P Accounting for decay of linkage disequilibrium in haplotype inference and missing-data imputation Am J Hum Genet 2005b 76 449 462 15700229 PMC1196397

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Y., Willer, C. J., Ding, J., Scheet, P., & Abecasis, G. R.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Abecasis, Gonçalo R.
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-05
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
816-834
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2166501262
Cited by
1,843
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 125 · 2017: 138 · 2016: 160 · 2015: 221 · 2014: 222 · 2013: 238 · 2012: 216
FWCI
99.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k99hl094535-02)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL084729, K99-HL094535)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH084698)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG002651, U01HG005214, RC2HG005552)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA082659)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
Mach, genotype imputation, haplotyping, Markov chains, genome-wide association study, shotgun sequencing, common genetic variants, fine mapping
MeSH terms
Alleles, Base Sequence, Chromosomes, Genetic Markers, Genotype, Haplotypes, Humans, Markov Chains, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Genome, Human, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review