ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2002
Systematic evaluation of map quality: human chromosome 22.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Large-scale integration of human genetic and physical maps.Genome research · 2004Article
- Genetic maps of microsatellite and single-nucleotide polymorphism markers: are the distances accurate?Genetic epidemiology · 2003Article
- Map error reduction: using genetic and sequence-based physical maps to order closely linked markers.Human heredity · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Marker positions on nine genetic linkage, radiation hybrid, and integrated maps of human chromosome 22 were compared with their corresponding positions in the completed DNA sequence. The proportion of markers whose map position is <250 kb from their respective sequence positions ranges from 100% to 35%. Several discordant markers were identified, as well as four regions that show common inconsistencies across multiple maps. These shared discordant regions surround duplicated DNA segments and may indicate mapping or assembly errors due to sequence homology. Recombination-rate distributions along the chromosome were also evaluated, with male and female meioses showing significantly different patterns of recombination, including an 8-Mb male recombination desert. The distributions of radiation-induced chromosome breakage for the GB4 and the G3 radiation hybrid panels were also evaluated. Both panels show fluctuations in breakage intensity, with different regions of significantly elevated rates of breakage. These results provide support for the common assumption that radiation-induced breaks are generally randomly distributed. The present studies detail the limitations of these important map resources and should prove useful for clarifying potential problems in the human maps and sequence assemblies, as well as for mapping and sequencing projects in and across other species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.