Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Bias01:22

Bias

7.9K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
7.9K
Weighted Mean00:57

Weighted Mean

7.2K
While taking the arithmetic, geometric, or harmonic mean of a sample data set, equal importance is assigned to all the data points. However, all the values may not always be equally important in some data sets. An intrinsic bias might make it more important to give more weightage to specific values over others.
For example, consider the number of goals scored in the matches of a tournament. While computing the average number of goals scored in the tournament, it may be more important to...
7.2K
Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

1.5K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
1.5K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

661
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
661
Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data01:16

Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data

565
Statistical inference techniques, paramount in hypothesis testing, differentiate into two broad categories: parametric and nonparametric statistics.
Parametric statistics, as the name suggests, assumes that data follow a specific distribution, often a normal distribution. This assumption enables robust hypothesis testing and estimation. Parametric methods, like the Student's t-test or Goodness-of-fit test, are frequently employed in biostatistics due to their robustness. For instance,...
565
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes01:15

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

4.3K
One-Way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples with equal or unequal sample sizes. When one-way ANOVA is performed on two datasets with samples of equal sizes, it can be easily observed that the computed F statistic is highly sensitive to the sample mean.
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
4.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Genomic insights into <i>Lolium multiflorum</i> diversity for forage breeding in Andean livestock systems.

Frontiers in plant science·2026
Same author

Improving genomic prediction in wheat with random regression models with genotype-specific phenology-driven environmental covariates.

The plant genome·2026
Same author

Jet Cold Plasma at Atmospheric Air Pressure for Venous Ulcers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open·2026
Same author

Diurnal and Phenological Modulation of Canopy Temperature in Wheat Breeding Under Mediterranean Conditions.

Plants (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Comparative genome-wide association study shows single-nucleotide polymorphic loci associated with resistance to Meloidogyne incognita, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. phaseoli, and their co-infection in common bean.

Planta·2026
Same author

Impact of preanalytical factors on blood CHI3L1 levels.

Frontiers in immunology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 14, 2026

Untargeted Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Analysis of Wheat Grain
07:10

Untargeted Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Analysis of Wheat Grain

Published on: March 13, 2020

10.9K

Ascertainment bias from imputation methods evaluation in wheat.

Sofía P Brandariz1, Agustín González Reymúndez1, Bettina Lado1

  • 1Statistics Department, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la República, Garzón 780, Montevideo, 12900, Uruguay.

BMC Genomics
|October 8, 2016
PubMed
Summary

Imputation methods in wheat genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) do not improve Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) performance without a reference panel. Using imputed data can lead to poorer results for quantitative trait loci (QTL) detection.

Keywords:
False positiveGBSGWASPowerQTL

More Related Videos

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

8.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 14, 2026

Untargeted Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Analysis of Wheat Grain
07:10

Untargeted Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Analysis of Wheat Grain

Published on: March 13, 2020

10.9K
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

8.2K

Area of Science:

  • Plant Genetics and Genomics
  • Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
  • Agricultural Science

Background:

  • Whole-genome genotyping techniques like Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) are crucial for genetic studies such as Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) and Genomewide Selection (GS).
  • Various imputation strategies exist, but imputation errors can negatively impact GWAS performance, especially when complete data is not required and markers are analyzed individually.
  • The absence of a reference panel in wheat GBS panels poses challenges for accurate imputation and subsequent genetic analyses.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the performance of Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) analysis for Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) of major and minor effect.
  • To evaluate different imputation methods in a wheat Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) panel lacking a reference panel.
  • To assess the impact of imputation on GWAS power and false positive rates using both simulated and real wheat phenotype data.

Main Methods:

  • Compared power and false positive rates of GWAS for quantitative traits using imputed versus not-imputed marker score matrices.
  • Utilized a complete barley marker panel and a wheat GBS panel with missing data for analysis.
  • Simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) with both imputed and not-imputed data to assess imputation method performance under different scenarios.

Main Results:

  • Imputation methods showed poorer performance when data was simulated with missing data created at random, indicating ascertainment bias.
  • When QTL were simulated with imputed data, imputation methods performed better; however, when QTL were simulated with not-imputed data, not-imputed methods were superior.
  • Larger differences between imputation methods were observed for major-effect QTL compared to minor-effect QTL. Real wheat phenotype data showed minimal differences, suggesting imputation did not enhance GWAS performance without a reference panel.

Conclusions:

  • Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) analysis in wheat Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) panels performs poorer when using imputed marker score matrices without a reference panel.
  • Imputation does not consistently improve GWAS performance for quantitative trait loci (QTL) detection in the absence of a reference panel.
  • The choice of imputation strategy and data type (imputed vs. not-imputed) significantly impacts GWAS results, particularly for major-effect QTL.