Cited by 216Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

A genotype calling algorithm for the Illumina BeadArray platform

Open access
Teo, Yik Y., Inouye, Michael, Small, Kerrin S., Gwilliam, Rhian, Deloukas, Panagiotis, Kwiatkowski, Dominic P., Clark, Taane G.·2007·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Large-scale genotyping relies on the use of unsupervised automated calling algorithms to assign genotypes to hybridization data. A number of such calling algorithms have been recently established for the Affymetrix GeneChip genotyping technology. Here, we present a fast and accurate genotype calling algorithm for the Illumina BeadArray genotyping platforms. As the technology moves towards assaying millions of genetic polymorphisms simultaneously, there is a need for an integrated and easy-to-use software for calling genotypes. Results: We have introduced a model-based genotype calling algorithm which does not rely on having prior training data or require computationally intensive procedures. The algorithm can assign genotypes to hybridization data from thousands of individuals simultaneously and pools information across multiple individuals to improve the calling. The method can accommodate variations in hybridization intensities which result in dramatic shifts of the position of the genotype clouds by identifying the optimal coordinates to initialize the algorithm. By incorporating the process of perturbation analysis, we can obtain a quality metric measuring the stability of the assigned genotype calls. We show that this quality metric can be used to identify SNPs with low call rates and accuracy. Availability: The C++ executable for the algorithm described here is available by request from the authors. Contact: teo@well.ox.ac.uk or tgc@well.ox.ac.uk

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm443

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Stringent QC filters were applied separately to each of the 8 groups to remove poorly performing samples.

    “As we used genotype data from multiple sources, it was important to apply stringent QC filters, as differential genotyping error rates between groups could result in spurious associations when the data are combined 50, 51.These filters were applied separately to each of these 8 groups to remove poorly performing samples using tools implemented in PLINK v1.0552.”

    From Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and PICALM associated with Alzheimer's disease (2009) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Results describe filtering poorly performing SNPs by call rate, and Methods §2.7 describes excluding unreliable SNP calls. Neither section reports applying QC filters separately to eight groups or removing poorly performing samples. In the citing sentence, the citation to this paper is attached to the preceding rationale about differential genotyping errors, not to the statement about the eight groups. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 13

  1. Bolstad BM A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias Bioinformatics 2003 19 185 193 12538238
  2. Carvalho B Exploration, normalization, and genotype calls of high-density oligonucleotide SNP array data Biostatistics 2007 8 485 499 17189563
  3. Di X Dynamic model based algorithms for screening and genotyping over 100K SNPs on oligonucleotide microarrays Bioinformatics 2005 21 1958 1963 15657097
  4. Gudmundsson J Genome-wide association study identifies a second prostate cancer susceptibility variantat 8q24 Nat. Genet 2007 39 631 637 17401366
  5. Gunderson KL Whole-genome genotyping of haplotype tag single nucleotide polymorphisms Pharmacogenomics 2006 7 641 648 16768648
  6. Moorhead M Optimal genotype determination in highly multiplexed SNP data Eur. J. Hum. Genet 2006 14 207 215 16306880
  7. Plagnol V A method to address differential bias in genotyping in large-scale association studies PLoS Genet 2007 3 e74 17511519 PMC1868951
  8. Rabbee N Speed TP A genotype calling algorithm for Affymetrix SNP arrays Bioinformatics 2006 1 7 12 16267090
  9. Rioux JD Genome-wide association study identifies new susceptibility loci for Crohn disease and implicates autophagy n disease pathogenesis Nat. Genet 2007 39 596 604 17435756 PMC2757939
  10. Steemers FJ Whole genome genotyping technologies on the BeadArray platform Biotechnol. J 2007 2 41 49 17225249
  11. The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3000 shared controls Nature 2007 447 661 678 17554300 PMC2719288
  12. Xiao Y A multi-array multi-SNP genotyping algorithm for Affymetrix SNP microarrays Bioinformatics 2007 27 1459 1467 17459966
  13. Yeager M Genome-wide association study of prostate cancer identifies a second risk locus at 8q24 Nat. Genet 2007 39 645 649 17401363

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teo, Y. Y., Inouye, M., Small, K. S., Gwilliam, R., Deloukas, P., Kwiatkowski, D. P., & Clark, T. G.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Human Genetics (GB)
  • 1 Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN and 2Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
Corresponding author
Teo, Yik Y.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2007-09-10
Volume
23
Issue
20
Pages
2741-2746
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2119004823
Cited by
216
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 25
FWCI
8.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust (077011, 082370)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
genotype calling, SNP genotyping, perturbation analysis
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Chromosome Mapping, Genotype, Cluster Analysis, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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