ArticleGenetics2014
Predicting discovery rates of genomic features.
Article in Genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scaled Process Priors for Bayesian Nonparametric Estimation of the Unseen Genetic Variation.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2024Article
- Genome sequencing of 2000 canids by the Dog10K consortium advances the understanding of demography, genome function and architecture.Genome biology · 2023Article
- RAREsim: A simulation method for very rare genetic variants.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Inferring the Joint Demographic History of Multiple Populations: Beyond the Diffusion Approximation.Genetics · 2017Article
- Quantifying unobserved protein-coding variants in human populations provides a roadmap for large-scale sequencing projects.Nature communications · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2016
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Successful sequencing experiments require judicious sample selection. However, this selection must often be performed on the basis of limited preliminary data. Predicting the statistical properties of the final sample based on preliminary data can be challenging, because numerous uncertain model assumptions may be involved. Here, we ask whether we can predict "omics" variation across many samples by sequencing only a fraction of them. In the infinite-genome limit, we find that a pilot study sequencing 5% of a population is sufficient to predict the number of genetic variants in the entire population within 6% of the correct value, using an estimator agnostic to demography, selection, or population structure. To reach similar accuracy in a finite genome with millions of polymorphisms, the pilot study would require ∼15% of the population. We present computationally efficient jackknife and linear programming methods that exhibit substantially less bias than the state of the art when applied to simulated data and subsampled 1000 Genomes Project data. Extrapolating based on the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Exome Sequencing Project data, we predict that 7.2% of sites in the capture region would be variable in a sample of 50,000 African Americans and 8.8% in a European sample of equal size. Finally, we show how the linear programming method can also predict discovery rates of various genomic features, such as the number of transcription factor binding sites across different cell types.
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.