Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24288159›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2014

Characterizing bias in population genetic inferences from low-coverage sequencing data.

Eunjung Han, Janet S Sinsheimer, John Novembre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 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
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Eunjung HanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Janet S Sinsheimer
John Novembre

Funding

STATISTICAL METHODS FOR GENE MAPPINGR01GM053275 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LANGE, KENNETH L · 1995 to 2019
$9.3M
Training Grant in Genomic Analysis and InterpretationT32HG002536 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Valerie A Arboleda, Harold Pimentel · 2002 to 2026
$8.6M
Haplotype-based analysis methods for population genomicsR01HG007089 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI NOVEMBRE, JOHN · 2013 to 2017
$1.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS HG007089NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG007089NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG002536NIGMS NIH HHS GM053275NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM053275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The site frequency spectrum (SFS) is of primary interest in population genetic studies, because the SFS compresses variation data into a simple summary from which many population genetic inferences can proceed. However, inferring the SFS from sequencing data is challenging because genotype calls from sequencing data are often inaccurate due to high error rates and if not accounted for, this genotype uncertainty can lead to serious bias in downstream analysis based on the inferred SFS. Here, we compare two approaches to estimate the SFS from sequencing data: one approach infers individual genotypes from aligned sequencing reads and then estimates the SFS based on the inferred genotypes (call-based approach) and the other approach directly estimates the SFS from aligned sequencing reads by maximum likelihood (direct estimation approach). We find that the SFS estimated by the direct estimation approach is unbiased even at low coverage, whereas the SFS by the call-based approach becomes biased as coverage decreases. The direction of the bias in the call-based approach depends on the pipeline to infer genotypes. Estimating genotypes by pooling individuals in a sample (multisample calling) results in underestimation of the number of rare variants, whereas estimating genotypes in each individual and merging them later (single-sample calling) leads to overestimation of rare variants. We characterize the impact of these biases on downstream analyses, such as demographic parameter estimation and genome-wide selection scans. Our work highlights that depending on the pipeline used to infer the SFS, one can reach different conclusions in population genetic inference with the same data set. Thus, careful attention to the analysis pipeline and SFS estimation procedures is vital for population genetic inferences.

Indexed as

Databases, Nucleic AcidGenetics, PopulationSequence Analysis, DNABase SequenceBiasGenomeHumansModels, GeneticPopulation Dynamicsaccuracybase-calling errorsmaximum likelihoodsite frequency spectrum

Identifiers

PMID24288159
PMCPMC3935184

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.