ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018
Robust inference of population structure from next-generation sequencing data with systematic differences in sequencing.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Motivation: Inferring population structure is important for both population genetics and genetic epidemiology. Principal components analysis (PCA) has been effective in ascertaining population structure with array genotype data but can be difficult to use with sequencing data, especially when low depth leads to uncertainty in called genotypes. Because PCA is sensitive to differences in variability, PCA using sequencing data can result in components that correspond to differences in sequencing quality (read depth and error rate), rather than differences in population structure. We demonstrate that even existing methods for PCA specifically designed for sequencing data can still yield biased conclusions when used with data having sequencing properties that are systematically different across different groups of samples (i.e. sequencing groups). This situation can arise in population genetics when combining sequencing data from different studies, or in genetic epidemiology when using historical controls such as samples from the 1000 Genomes Project. Results: To allow inference on population structure using PCA in these situations, we provide an approach that is based on using sequencing reads directly without calling genotypes. Our approach is to adjust the data from different sequencing groups to have the same read depth and error rate so that PCA does not generate spurious components representing sequencing quality. To accomplish this, we have developed a subsampling procedure to match the depth distributions in different sequencing groups, and a read-flipping procedure to match the error rates. We average over subsamples and read flips to minimize loss of information. We demonstrate the utility of our approach using two datasets from 1000 Genomes, and further evaluate it using simulation studies. Availability and implementation: TASER-PC software is publicly available at http://web1.sph.emory.edu/users/yhu30/software.html. Contact: yijuan.hu@emory.edu. Supplementary 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.