ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2015
Fast and accurate site frequency spectrum estimation from low coverage sequence data.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling Biases from Low-Pass Genome Sequencing to Enable Accurate Population Genetic Inferences.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- Fast and accurate estimation of multidimensional site frequency spectra from low-coverage high-throughput sequencing data.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Correcting Bias in Allele Frequency Estimates Due to an Observation Threshold: A Markov Chain Analysis.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Global patterns in genomic diversity underpinning the evolution of insecticide resistance in the aphid crop pest Myzus persicae.Communications biology · 2021Article
- Whole-genome sequencing for an enhanced understanding of genetic variation among South Africans.Nature communications · 2017Article
- Comparison of Single Genome and Allele Frequency Data Reveals Discordant Demographic Histories.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationThe distribution of allele frequencies across polymorphic sites, also known as the site frequency spectrum (SFS), is of primary interest in population genetics. It is a complete summary of sequence variation at unlinked sites and more generally, its shape reflects underlying population genetic processes. One practical challenge is that inferring the SFS from low coverage sequencing data in a straightforward manner by using genotype calls can lead to significant bias. To reduce bias, previous studies have used a statistical method that directly estimates the SFS from sequencing data by first computing site allele frequency (SAF) likelihood for each site (i.e. the likelihood a site has each possible allele frequency conditional on observed sequence reads) using a dynamic programming (DP) algorithm. Although this method produces an accurate SFS, computing the SAF likelihood is quadratic in the number of samples sequenced.
resultsTo overcome this computational challenge, we propose an algorithm, 'score-limited DP' algorithm, which is linear in the number of genomes to compute the SAF likelihood. This algorithm works because in a lower triangular matrix that arises in the DP algorithm, all non-negligible values of the SAF likelihood are concentrated on a few cells around the best-guess allele counts. We show that our score-limited DP algorithm has comparable accuracy but is faster than the original DP algorithm. This speed improvement makes SFS estimation practical when using low coverage NGS data from a large number of individuals. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The program will be available via a link from the Novembre lab website (http://jnpopgen.org/).
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.