Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18632583›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2008

Hidden copy number variation in the HapMap population.

John C Marioni, Michael White, Simon Tavaré, Andrew G Lynch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

John C MarioniDepartment of Oncology, Computational Biology Group, University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Michael White
Simon Tavaré
Andrew G Lynch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the extent of copy number variation (CNV) throughout the genome has been shown to be far greater than previously thought. Further, it has been demonstrated that specific copy number variable regions (CNVRs) are associated with particular diseases, suggesting that these genetic variations may have an important biological role. Hence, calling CNVRs and subsequently classifying samples as "losses" or "gains" is of great interest. A number of papers have been published containing classifications of CNVs, and here we show how the presence of pedigree information can be used for assessing the performance of those classification methods. In this article, by examining CNV classifications made in the HapMap samples, we show that estimates of the number of false-positive classifications per individual made by current approaches can be determined. Moreover, commonplace technologies for determining the locations of CNVRs aggregate information across the maternal and paternal chromosomes at the locus of interest. Here, we show that copy number variation on each chromosome can be inferred and, in particular, we discuss the existence of a class of CNVs that are inevitably misclassified and give an estimate of their prevalence. Although our focus is not on the development of calling algorithms per se, we describe and provide an example of how our model might be incorporated into the initial classification procedure to produce more robust results. Finally, we discuss how this methodology might be applied to future studies to obtain better estimates of the extent of CNV across the genome.

Indexed as

Gene DosageGenetic VariationGenome, HumanAlgorithmsDatabases, GeneticFemaleGenetics, PopulationHumansLikelihood FunctionsMaleModels, GeneticOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPedigree

Identifiers

PMID18632583
PMCPMC2481329

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.