ArticlePloS one2017
A SNP panel and online tool for checking genotype concordance through comparing QR codes.
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 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.
- Article
- Screening a new set of microhaplotypes in exonic regions for sample identity testing and paternity testing during whole exome sequencing analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Development of a coding SNP panel for tracking the origin of whole-exome sequencing samples.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- PAGEANT: personal access to genome and analysis of natural traits.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- A Preliminary Study of the Association between SOX17 Gene Variants and Intracranial Aneurysms Using Exome Sequencing.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the current precision medicine era, more and more samples get genotyped and sequenced. Both researchers and commercial companies expend significant time and resources to reduce the error rate. However, it has been reported that there is a sample mix-up rate of between 0.1% and 1%, not to mention the possibly higher mix-up rate during the down-stream genetic reporting processes. Even on the low end of this estimate, this translates to a significant number of mislabeled samples, especially over the projected one billion people that will be sequenced within the next decade. Here, we first describe a method to identify a small set of Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that can uniquely identify a personal genome, which utilizes allele frequencies of five major continental populations reported in the 1000 genomes project and the ExAC Consortium. To make this panel more informative, we added four SNPs that are commonly used to predict ABO blood type, and another two SNPs that are capable of predicting sex. We then implement a web interface (http://qrcme.tech), nicknamed QRC (for QR code based Concordance check), which is capable of extracting the relevant ID SNPs from a raw genetic data, coding its genotype as a quick response (QR) code, and comparing QR codes to report the concordance of underlying genetic datasets. The resulting 80 fingerprinting SNPs represent a significant decrease in complexity and the number of markers used for genetic data labelling and tracking. Our method and web tool is easily accessible to both researchers and the general public who consider the accuracy of complex genetic data as a prerequisite towards precision medicine.
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.