Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28609482›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Quickly identifying identical and closely related subjects in large databases using genotype data.

Yumi Jin, Alejandro A Schäffer, Stephen T Sherry, Michael Feolo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Social, Behavioral, and Clinical Risk Factors Are Associated with Clonal Hematopoiesis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Yumi JinNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2499-8760
Alejandro A SchäfferNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Stephen T SherryNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7982-076X
Michael FeoloNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1650-5156

Funding

National Biomedical Information ServicesZIHLM200888 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI PALTOO, DINA · 2009 to 2025
$5200.7M
Case Studies In GeneticsZIALM000097 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI SCHAFFER, ALEJANDRO A · 2009 to 2019
$4.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) usually rely on the assumption that different samples are not from closely related individuals. Detection of duplicates and close relatives becomes more difficult both statistically and computationally when one wants to combine datasets that may have been genotyped on different platforms. The dbGaP repository at the National Center of Biotechnology Information (NCBI) contains datasets from hundreds of studies with over one million samples. There are many duplicates and closely related individuals both within and across studies from different submitters. Relationships between studies cannot always be identified by the submitters of individual datasets. To aid in curation of dbGaP, we developed a rapid statistical method called Genetic Relationship and Fingerprinting (GRAF) to detect duplicates and closely related samples, even when the sets of genotyped markers differ and the DNA strand orientations are unknown. GRAF extracts genotypes of 10,000 informative and independent SNPs from genotype datasets obtained using different methods, and implements quick algorithms that enable it to find all of the duplicate pairs from more than 880,000 samples within and across dbGaP studies in less than two hours. In addition, GRAF uses two statistical metrics called All Genotype Mismatch Rate (AGMR) and Homozygous Genotype Mismatch Rate (HGMR) to determine subject relationships directly from the observed genotypes, without estimating probabilities of identity by descent (IBD), or kinship coefficients, and compares the predicted relationships with those reported in the pedigree files. We implemented GRAF in a freely available C++ program of the same name. In this paper, we describe the methods in GRAF and validate the usage of GRAF on samples from the dbGaP repository. Other scientists can use GRAF on their own samples and in combination with samples downloaded from dbGaP.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideComputational BiologyDatabases, Nucleic AcidData MiningGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28609482
PMCPMC5469481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.