ArticleHuman heredity2012
Obtaining accurate p values from a dense SNP linkage scan.
Article in Human heredity, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A major concern of resequencing studies is that the pathogenicity of most mutations is difficult to predict. To address this concern, linkage (i.e. co-segregation) analysis is often used to exclude neutral mutations and to better predict pathogenicity among the candidate mutations that remain. However, when linkage disequilibrium (LD) is present in the population but ignored in the analysis, unlinked regions with high LD can inflate the type 1 error and thousands of neutral mutations may be mistakenly included in a follow-up resequencing study, which could dramatically reduce the power to identify causal variants. To illustrate the need for concern, we simulated data on a sparsely spaced panel of single nucleotide polymorphisms (average spacing 1.27 cM) using an LD pattern estimated from real data. In our simulations, we find that the type 1 error of the maximum LOD can be as high as 14%. Therefore, to control the type 1 error of linkage tests we created Haplodrop - a fast and flexible simulation program that generates the haplotypes of founders with LD and then 'drops' these haplotypes with recombination to all non-founders in the pedigree. Haplodrop can be used to control the type 1 error of any linkage test, agrees well with existing software, accommodates arbitrary pedigree structures, and scales easily to the whole genome. Moreover, by correctly excluding mutations that lie in unlinked regions with high LD, Haplodrop should aid significantly in reducing the multiple testing burden of follow-up resequencing studies.
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.