Performance of Genotype Imputation for Low Frequency and Rare Variants from the 1000 Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genotype imputation is now routinely applied in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and meta-analyses. However, most of the imputations have been run using HapMap samples as reference, imputation of low frequency and rare variants (minor allele frequency (MAF) < 5%) are not systemically assessed. With the emergence of next-generation sequencing, large reference panels (such as the 1000 Genomes panel) are available to facilitate imputation of these variants. Therefore, in order to estimate the performance of low frequency and rare variants imputation, we imputed 153 individuals, each of whom had 3 different genotype array data including 317k, 610k and 1 million SNPs, to three different reference panels: the 1000 Genomes pilot March 2010 release (1KGpilot), the 1000 Genomes interim August 2010 release (1KGinterim), and the 1000 Genomes phase1 November 2010 and May 2011 release (1KGphase1) by using IMPUTE version 2. The differences between these three releases of the 1000 Genomes data are the sample size, ancestry diversity, number of variants and their frequency spectrum. We found that both reference panel and GWAS chip density affect the imputation of low frequency and rare variants. 1KGphase1 outperformed the other 2 panels, at higher concordance rate, higher proportion of well-imputed variants (info>0.4) and higher mean info score in each MAF bin. Similarly, 1M chip array outperformed 610K and 317K. However for very rare variants (MAF ≤ 0.3%), only 0-1% of the variants were well imputed. We conclude that the imputation of low frequency and rare variants improves with larger reference panels and higher density of genome-wide genotyping arrays. Yet, despite a large reference panel size and dense genotyping density, very rare variants remain difficult to impute.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".