Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31348818›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2019

The presence and impact of reference bias on population genomic studies of prehistoric human populations.

Torsten Günther, Carl Nettelblad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed
–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

134 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. On the Edge of Empire: Paleogenomic Insights into Roman Dacia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The chromosome-level genome of Chinese indicine cattle breed provides insights into bovine adaptation and immunity.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

74 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Torsten GüntherHuman Evolution, Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9460-390X
Carl NettelbladDivision of Scientific Computing, Department of Information Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0458-6902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Haploid high quality reference genomes are an important resource in genomic research projects. A consequence is that DNA fragments carrying the reference allele will be more likely to map successfully, or receive higher quality scores. This reference bias can have effects on downstream population genomic analysis when heterozygous sites are falsely considered homozygous for the reference allele. In palaeogenomic studies of human populations, mapping against the human reference genome is used to identify endogenous human sequences. Ancient DNA studies usually operate with low sequencing coverages and fragmentation of DNA molecules causes a large proportion of the sequenced fragments to be shorter than 50 bp-reducing the amount of accepted mismatches, and increasing the probability of multiple matching sites in the genome. These ancient DNA specific properties are potentially exacerbating the impact of reference bias on downstream analyses, especially since most studies of ancient human populations use pseudo-haploid data, i.e. they randomly sample only one sequencing read per site. We show that reference bias is pervasive in published ancient DNA sequence data of prehistoric humans with some differences between individual genomic regions. We illustrate that the strength of reference bias is negatively correlated with fragment length. Most genomic regions we investigated show little to no mapping bias but even a small proportion of sites with bias can impact analyses of those particular loci or slightly skew genome-wide estimates. Therefore, reference bias has the potential to cause minor but significant differences in the results of downstream analyses such as population allele sharing, heterozygosity estimates and estimates of archaic ancestry. These spurious results highlight how important it is to be aware of these technical artifacts and that we need strategies to mitigate the effect. Therefore, we suggest some post-mapping filtering strategies to resolve reference bias which help to reduce its impact substantially.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiasDNA, AncientGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHominidaeHumansMetagenomicsSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareDNA, Ancient

Identifiers

PMID31348818
PMCPMC6685638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.