ArticleHuman heredity2002
Map error reduction: using genetic and sequence-based physical maps to order closely linked markers.
Article in Human heredity, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An updated 'Essex' by 'Forrest' linkage map and first composite interval map of QTL underlying six soybean traits.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2006Article
- Optimizing the evidence for linkage by permuting marker order.BMC genetics · 2005Article
- Genetic maps of microsatellite and single-nucleotide polymorphism markers: are the distances accurate?Genetic epidemiology · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Marshfield comprehensive genetic maps are frequently used for linkage and association studies, however, for some regions of these maps the marker order has low level of likelihood ratio support. In order to investigate the level of statistical support and the accuracy of the genetic maps compared to sequence-based physical maps, two approximately 30 cM autosomal regions were selected. The first region was selected from chromosome 3 and consisted predominately of draft sequence. The second region was selected from chromosome 21 and consisted of finished sequence data. The physical order of these markers was based upon their position on Celera (CEL) and Human Genome Project-Santa Cruz (HGP-sc) sequence-based physical maps. The chromosome 3 and 21 regions contained 100 and 61 markers, respectively, on the Marshfield genetic map. The genetic and physical map order was consistent for 88.9 and 89.2% of the markers in the region on chromosome 3 and 21, respectively. Using a novel scoring criterion to assess inconsistent marker order between genetic and physical maps, it was determined that the physical order was likely the correct order for 3.3 and 7.1% of the markers in the chromosome 3 and 21 regions, respectively. To increase the accuracy of the order of markers selected for fine mapping a method is presented which combines information from genetic and sequence-based physical maps.
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.