Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12871914›Full record

ArticleGenetics2003

Theory of the effects of population structure and sampling on patterns of linkage disequilibrium applied to genomic data from humans.

John Wakeley, Sabin Lessard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John WakeleyDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. wakeley@fas.harvard.edu
Sabin Lessard

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We develop predictions for the correlation of heterozygosity and for linkage disequilibrium between two loci using a simple model of population structure that includes migration among local populations, or demes. We compare the results for a sample of size two from the same deme (a single-deme sample) to those for a sample of size two from two different demes (a scattered sample). The correlation in heterozygosity for a scattered sample is surprisingly insensitive to both the migration rate and the number of demes. In contrast, the correlation in heterozygosity for a single-deme sample is sensitive to both, and the effect of an increase in the number of demes is qualitatively similar to that of a decrease in the migration rate: both increase the correlation in heterozygosity. These same conclusions hold for a commonly used measure of linkage disequilibrium (r(2)). We compare the predictions of the theory to genomic data from humans and show that subdivision might account for a substantial portion of the genetic associations observed within the human genome, even though migration rates among local populations of humans are relatively large. Because correlations due to subdivision rather than to physical linkage can be large even in a single-deme sample, then if long-term migration has been important in shaping patterns of human polymorphism, the common practice of disease mapping using linkage disequilibrium in "isolated" local populations may be subject to error.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationGenome, HumanLinkage DisequilibriumModels, BiologicalEmigration and ImmigrationHeterozygoteHumansPopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID12871914
PMCPMC1462626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.