Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Different genome build used for phase 1 VS phase 2 data #82

Closed
ggstatgen opened this issue Feb 18, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Different genome build used for phase 1 VS phase 2 data #82

ggstatgen opened this issue Feb 18, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@ggstatgen
Copy link

ggstatgen commented Feb 18, 2021

Hi

Does it matter for Regenie if the genome build used for the variants in phase I are not the ones used for the variants in phase II?

Whilst setting up a Regenie run to look at associations on the UKBB 200k WES set, I noticed that the original UKBB genotype chip data I plan on using for phase 1 is in GRCh37/hg19, whereas the 200k WES are in GRCh38/hg38.

How to deal with this? Will Regenie use the rsIDs in the ukb_cal_allChrs.bim for phase I or will it make use of the coordinates instead?

Is a liftover of sorts needed? Many thanks in advance.

@rgcgithub
Copy link
Owner

If you use the chip data in Step 1 and the WES data in Step 2 it shouldn't matter if the chip data is GRCh37/hg19 and the WES data is GRCh38/hg38. When testing a SNP in Step 2 using the LOCO scheme REGENIE conditions on a PRS constructed from all other chromosomes. It doesn't matter what the SNP coordinates are when building that PRS.

However, it would probably recommend that you do liftover the GRCh37/hg19 data to GRCh38/hg38. Just for the sake of avoiding any confusion of any other analysis you might want to do that combines the chip and WES data.

I hope that helps,

Jonathan

@ggstatgen
Copy link
Author

Many thanks for the speedy reply Jonathan - it helps a lot.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants