ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017
A likelihood ratio-based method to predict exact pedigrees for complex families from next-generation sequencing data.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- IBS-CNN: a novel computer vision-based kinship classification model for high-density SNP microarray.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Methodological challenges in the genomic analysis of an endangered mammal population with low genetic diversity.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A machine learning approach for missing persons cases with high genotyping errors.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- De Novo Mutations in SLC25A24 Cause a Craniosynostosis Syndrome with Hypertrichosis, Progeroid Appearance, and Mitochondrial Dysfunction.American journal of human genetics · 2017Article
- Who's Who? Detecting and Resolving Sample Anomalies in Human DNA Sequencing Studies with Peddy.American journal of human genetics · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationNext generation sequencing technology considerably changed the way we screen for pathogenic mutations in rare Mendelian disorders. However, the identification of the disease-causing mutation amongst thousands of variants of partly unknown relevance is still challenging and efficient techniques that reduce the genomic search space play a decisive role. Often segregation- or linkage analysis are used to prioritize candidates, however, these approaches require correct information about the degree of relationship among the sequenced samples. For quality assurance an automated control of pedigree structures and sample assignment is therefore highly desirable in order to detect label mix-ups that might otherwise corrupt downstream analysis.
resultsWe developed an algorithm based on likelihood ratios that discriminates between different classes of relationship for an arbitrary number of genotyped samples. By identifying the most likely class we are able to reconstruct entire pedigrees iteratively, even for highly consanguineous families. We tested our approach on exome data of different sequencing studies and achieved high precision for all pedigree predictions. By analyzing the precision for varying degrees of relatedness or inbreeding we could show that a prediction is robust down to magnitudes of a few hundred loci. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: A java standalone application that computes the relationships between multiple samples as well as a Rscript that visualizes the pedigree information is available for download as well as a web service at www.gene-talk.de CONTACT: heinrich@molgen.mpg.deSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.