Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23150602›Full record

ArticleGenetics2013

The effect of genomic inversions on estimation of population genetic parameters from SNP data.

Nafisa-Katrin Seich Al Basatena, Clive J Hoggart, Lachlan J Coin, Paul F O'Reilly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Nafisa-Katrin Seich Al BasatenaDepartment of Immunology, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, United Kingdom.
Clive J Hoggart
Lachlan J Coin
Paul F O'Reilly

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years it has emerged that structural variants have a substantial impact on genomic variation. Inversion polymorphisms represent a significant class of structural variant, and despite the challenges in their detection, data on inversions in the human genome are increasing rapidly. Statistical methods for inferring parameters such as the recombination rate and the selection coefficient have generally been developed without accounting for the presence of inversions. Here we exploit new software for simulating inversions in population genetic data, invertFREGENE, to assess the potential impact of inversions on such methods. Using data simulated by invertFREGENE, as well as real data from several sources, we test whether large inversions have a disruptive effect on widely applied population genetics methods for inferring recombination rates, for detecting selection, and for controlling for population structure in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We find that recombination rates estimated by LDhat are biased downward at inversion loci relative to the true contemporary recombination rates at the loci but that recombination hotspots are not falsely inferred at inversion breakpoints as may have been expected. We find that the integrated haplotype score (iHS) method for detecting selection appears robust to the presence of inversions. Finally, we observe a strong bias in the genome-wide results of principal components analysis (PCA), used to control for population structure in GWAS, in the presence of even a single large inversion, confirming the necessity to thin SNPs by linkage disequilibrium at large physical distances to obtain unbiased results.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideHumansPrincipal Component AnalysisRecombination, GeneticSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID23150602
PMCPMC3527249

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.