↓ Skip to main content

Effect of genotype imputation on genome-enabled prediction of complex traits: an empirical study with mice data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomic Data, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of genotype imputation on genome-enabled prediction of complex traits: an empirical study with mice data
Published in
BMC Genomic Data, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12863-014-0149-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian PS Felipe, Hayrettin Okut, Daniel Gianola, Martinho A Silva, Guilherme JM Rosa

Abstract

BackgroundGenotype imputation is an important tool for whole-genome prediction as it allows cost reduction of individual genotyping. However, benefits of genotype imputation have been evaluated mostly for linear additive genetic models. In this study we investigated the impact of employing imputed genotypes when using more elaborated models of phenotype prediction. Our hypothesis was that such models would be able to track genetic signals using the observed genotypes only, with no additional information to be gained from imputed genotypes.ResultsFor the present study, an outbred mice population containing 1,904 individuals and genotypes for 1,809 pre-selected markers was used. The effect of imputation was evaluated for a linear model (the Bayesian LASSO - BL) and for semi and non-parametric models (Reproducing Kernel Hilbert spaces regressions ¿ RKHS, and Bayesian Regularized Artificial Neural Networks ¿ BRANN, respectively). The RKHS method had the best predictive accuracy. Genotype imputation had a similar impact on the effectiveness of BL and RKHS. BRANN predictions were, apparently, more sensitive to imputation errors. In scenarios where the masking rates were 75% and 50%, the genotype imputation was not beneficial. However, genotype imputation incorporated information about important markers and improved predictive ability, especially for body mass index (BMI), when genotype information was sparse (90% masking), and for body weight (BW) when the reference sample for imputation was weakly related to the target population.ConclusionsIn conclusion, genotype imputation is not always helpful for phenotype prediction, and so it should be considered in a case-by-case basis. In summary, factors that can affect the usefulness of genotype imputation for prediction of yet-to-be observed traits are: the imputation accuracy itself, the structure of the population, the genetic architecture of the target trait and also the model used for phenotype prediction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 7%
France 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 33%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 63%
Mathematics 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomic Data
#668
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,472
of 359,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomic Data
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.