Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22595242›Full record

ArticleGenetics2012

A coalescent model for genotype imputation.

Ethan M Jewett, Matthew Zawistowski, Noah A Rosenberg, Sebastian Zöllner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model of tumor lysis syndrome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with flavopiridol.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2013
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Tree-based QTL mapping with expected local genetic relatedness matrices.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. References for Haplotype Imputation in the Big Data Era.Molecular biology (Los Angeles, Calif.) · 2015
    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

4 authors.

Ethan M JewettDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Matthew Zawistowski
Noah A Rosenberg
Sebastian Zöllner

Funding

University of Michigan Training Program in Genomic ScienceT32HG000040 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Sebastian Zoellner · 1995 to 2026
$16.4M
Population genetics for large-scale sequencing studies of diverse populationsR01HG005855 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Noah Rosenberg, Paul A Scheet · 2010 to 2026
$5.8M
Population-Genetic Studies for Association MappingR01GM081441 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ROSENBERG, NOAH · 2007 to 2011
$1.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005855NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG000040NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM081441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential for imputed genotypes to enhance an analysis of genetic data depends largely on the accuracy of imputation, which in turn depends on properties of the reference panel of template haplotypes used to perform the imputation. To provide a basis for exploring how properties of the reference panel affect imputation accuracy theoretically rather than with computationally intensive imputation experiments, we introduce a coalescent model that considers imputation accuracy in terms of population-genetic parameters. Our model allows us to investigate sampling designs in the frequently occurring scenario in which imputation targets and templates are sampled from different populations. In particular, we derive expressions for expected imputation accuracy as a function of reference panel size and divergence time between the reference and target populations. We find that a modestly sized "internal" reference panel from the same population as a target haplotype yields, on average, greater imputation accuracy than a larger "external" panel from a different population, even if the divergence time between the two populations is small. The improvement in accuracy for the internal panel increases with increasing divergence time between the target and reference populations. Thus, in humans, our model predicts that imputation accuracy can be improved by generating small population-specific custom reference panels to augment existing collections such as those of the HapMap or 1000 Genomes Projects. Our approach can be extended to understand additional factors that affect imputation accuracy in complex population-genetic settings, and the results can ultimately facilitate improvements in imputation study designs.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeModels, GeneticAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHaplotypesHumansPopulation Density

Identifiers

PMID22595242
PMCPMC3416004

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.