Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16465620›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2006

A comparison of phasing algorithms for trios and unrelated individuals.

Jonathan Marchini, David Cutler, Nick Patterson, Matthew Stephens, Eleazar Eskin, Eran Halperin, Shin Lin, Zhaohui S Qin, Heather M Munro, Goncalo R Abecasis and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

137 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Imputation of ancient human genomes.Nature communications · 2023
    Article
  8. Haplotyping-Assisted Diploid Assembly and Variant Detection with Linked Reads.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Causal inference in genetic trio studies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A New Fast Phasing Method Based On Haplotype Subtraction.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

77 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jonathan MarchiniDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3TG, United Kingdom. marchini@stats.ox.ac.uk
David Cutler
Nick Patterson
Matthew Stephens
Eleazar Eskin
Eran Halperin
Shin Lin
Zhaohui S Qin
Heather M Munro
Goncalo R Abecasis
Peter Donnelly
International HapMap Consortium

Funding

VISUALIZATION TOOLS FOR AUTOMATED MOLECULAR MICROSCOPYP41RR008605 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PAPADOPOULOS, PHILIP · 1994 to 2011
$28.1M
Genome analysis: statistical methods and applicationsR01HG002585 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MATTHEW STEPHENS · 2002 to 2026
$8.4M
Computational and Statistical Models for Human PedigreesR01HG002651 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ABECASIS, GONCALO · 2003 to 2008
$2.9M
NCRR NIH HHS P41 RR008605NCRR NIH HHS P41 RR08605NHGRI NIH HHS 1R01HG/LM02585-01NHGRI NIH HHS HG02651NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002651Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge of haplotype phase is valuable for many analysis methods in the study of disease, population, and evolutionary genetics. Considerable research effort has been devoted to the development of statistical and computational methods that infer haplotype phase from genotype data. Although a substantial number of such methods have been developed, they have focused principally on inference from unrelated individuals, and comparisons between methods have been rather limited. Here, we describe the extension of five leading algorithms for phase inference for handling father-mother-child trios. We performed a comprehensive assessment of the methods applied to both trios and to unrelated individuals, with a focus on genomic-scale problems, using both simulated data and data from the HapMap project. The most accurate algorithm was PHASE (v2.1). For this method, the percentages of genotypes whose phase was incorrectly inferred were 0.12%, 0.05%, and 0.16% for trios from simulated data, HapMap Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (CEPH) trios, and HapMap Yoruban trios, respectively, and 5.2% and 5.9% for unrelated individuals in simulated data and the HapMap CEPH data, respectively. The other methods considered in this work had comparable but slightly worse error rates. The error rates for trios are similar to the levels of genotyping error and missing data expected. We thus conclude that all the methods considered will provide highly accurate estimates of haplotypes when applied to trio data sets. Running times differ substantially between methods. Although it is one of the slowest methods, PHASE (v2.1) was used to infer haplotypes for the 1 million-SNP HapMap data set. Finally, we evaluated methods of estimating the value of r(2) between a pair of SNPs and concluded that all methods estimated r(2) well when the estimated value was >or=0.8.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsParent-Child RelationsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideComputer SimulationGenetics, BehavioralHaplotypesHumans

Identifiers

PMID16465620
PMCPMC1380287

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.