Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27145223›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2016

Efficient Coalescent Simulation and Genealogical Analysis for Large Sample Sizes.

Jerome Kelleher, Alison M Etheridge, Gilean McVean

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 388 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
388citing 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

388 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

328 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jerome KelleherWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Alison M EtheridgeDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gilean McVeanWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A central challenge in the analysis of genetic variation is to provide realistic genome simulation across millions of samples. Present day coalescent simulations do not scale well, or use approximations that fail to capture important long-range linkage properties. Analysing the results of simulations also presents a substantial challenge, as current methods to store genealogies consume a great deal of space, are slow to parse and do not take advantage of shared structure in correlated trees. We solve these problems by introducing sparse trees and coalescence records as the key units of genealogical analysis. Using these tools, exact simulation of the coalescent with recombination for chromosome-sized regions over hundreds of thousands of samples is possible, and substantially faster than present-day approximate methods. We can also analyse the results orders of magnitude more quickly than with existing methods.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationModels, GeneticPedigreeAlgorithmsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationEvolution, MolecularGenetics, PopulationHumansRecombination, GeneticSample Size

Identifiers

PMID27145223
PMCPMC4856371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.