Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2026

Large-Scale Multi-Omics Genome-Wide Association Studies (Mo-GWAS): Guidelines for Sample Preparation and Normalization
Published on: July 27, 2021
Assessing sources of inconsistencies in genotypes and their effects on genome-wide association studies with HapMap
1Division of Systems Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, USA. huixiao.hong@fda.hhs.gov
Abstract:
The discordance in results of independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) indicates the potential for Type I and Type II errors. We assessed the repeatibility of current Affymetrix technologies that support GWAS. Reasonable reproducibility was observed for both raw intensity and the genotypes/copy number variants. We also assessed consistencies between different SNP arrays and between genotype calling algorithms. We observed that the inconsistency in genotypes was generally small at the specimen level. To further examine whether the differences from genotyping and genotype calling are possible sources of variation in GWAS results, an association analysis was applied to compare the associated SNPs. We observed that the inconsistency in genotypes not only propagated to the association analysis, but was amplified in the associated SNPs. Our studies show that inconsistencies between SNP arrays and between genotype calling algorithms are potential sources for the lack of reproducibility in GWAS results.
Related Concept Videos
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Incomplete Dominance
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms-SNPs
