ArticleScientific reports2018
Genome-wide screen for universal individual identification SNPs based on the HapMap and 1000 Genomes databases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- SNP analysis of challenging bone DNA samples using the HID-Ion AmpliSeq™ Identity Panel: facts and artefacts.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Systematic selections and forensic application evaluations of 111 individual identification SNPs in the Chinese Inner Mongolia Manchu group.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- A novel computational strategy to predict the value of the evidence in the SNP-based forensic mixtures.PloS one · 2021Article
- Comprehensive Insights Into Forensic Features and Genetic Background of Chinese Northwest Hui Group Using Six Distinct Categories of 231 Molecular Markers.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Evaluation of ultra-low input RNA sequencing for the study of human T cell transcriptome.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differences among SNP panels for individual identification in SNP-selecting and populations led to few common SNPs, compromising their universal applicability. To screen all universal SNPs, we performed a genome-wide SNP mining in multiple populations based on HapMap and 1000Genomes databases. SNPs with high minor allele frequencies (MAF) in 37 populations were selected. With MAF from ≥0.35 to ≥0.43, the number of selected SNPs decreased from 2769 to 0. A total of 117 SNPs with MAF ≥0.39 have no linkage disequilibrium with each other in every population. For 116 of the 117 SNPs, cumulative match probability (CMP) ranged from 2.01 × 10-48 to 1.93 × 10-50 and cumulative exclusion probability (CEP) ranged from 0.9999999996653 to 0.9999999999945. In 134 tested Han samples, 110 of the 117 SNPs remained within high MAF and conformed to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, with CMP = 4.70 × 10-47 and CEP = 0.999999999862. By analyzing the same number of autosomal SNPs as in the HID-Ion AmpliSeq Identity Panel, i.e. 90 randomized out of the 110 SNPs, our panel yielded preferable CMP and CEP. Taken together, the 110-SNPs panel is advantageous for forensic test, and this study provided plenty of highly informative SNPs for compiling final universal panels.
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.