It is time to replace genotyping arrays with sequencing

Over the last ten years, the field of human genomics has made unbelievable progress in identifying genetic variants that influence disease susceptibility and other traits (see, e.g. <a href="http://www.cell.com.sci-hub.cc/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(17)30240-9" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">this review</a>). The technological advance that drove this progress was the development of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNP_array" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">genotyping microarrays</a>: a technology for the measurement of hundreds of thousands to millions of genetic variants in a single person. The benefits and limitations of genetic studies using this technology (often confusingly called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">genome-wide association studies</a> [1]) have been debated since before anyone even tried one (see examples from <a href="http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v26/n2/full/ng1000_151.html" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">2000</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081105/full/456018a.html" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">2008</a>, and <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/new-concerns-raised-over-value-of-genome-wide-disease-studies-1.22152" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">2017</a>). But it’s generally believed that, if one accepts the basic goals and assumptions of a genome-wide association study, the most cost-effective and powerful technology to use is a genotyping array. <a href="https://medium.com/the-gencove-blog/it-is-time-to-replace-genotyping-arrays-with-sequencing-73535efa66ed">Click Here</a>