ArticleGenetic epidemiology2019
Estimation of DNA contamination and its sources in genotyped samples.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Recommendations for the Use of Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing in the Prenatal Setting on Behalf of the ESHG and ISPD.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Global recommendations for the use of diagnostic genomic sequencing in the prenatal setting on behalf of the ESHG and ISPD.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- MBGC2: Boosting compression via efficient encoding of approximate matches in genome collections.GigaScience · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk score for drug-induced long QT syndrome: independent validation in a real-world patient cohort.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 2025Article
- Genetic risk factors for drug-induced long QT syndrome: findings from a large real-world case-control study.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Observational
- The Michigan Genomics Initiative: A biobank linking genotypes and electronic clinical records in Michigan Medicine patients.Cell genomics · 2023Article
- Eight pharmacokinetic genetic variants are not associated with the risk of bleeding from direct oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Why are rare variants hard to impute? Coalescent models reveal theoretical limits in existing algorithms.Genetics · 2021Article
- Estimation of intrafamilial DNA contamination in family trio genome sequencing using deviation from Mendelian inheritance.Genome researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Array genotyping is a cost-effective and widely used tool that enables assessment of up to millions of genetic markers in hundreds of thousands of individuals. Genotyping array data are typically highly accurate but sensitive to mixing of DNA samples from multiple individuals before or during genotyping. Contaminated samples can lead to genotyping errors and consequently cause false positive signals or reduce power of association analyses. Here, we propose a new method to identify contaminated samples and the sources of contamination within a genotyping batch. Through analysis of array intensity and genotype data from intentionally mixed samples and 22,366 samples of the Michigan Genomics Initiative, an ongoing biobank-based study, we show that our method can reliably estimate contamination. We also show that identifying sources of contamination can implicate problematic sample processing steps and guide process improvements. Compared to existing methods, our approach can estimate the proportion of contaminating DNA more accurately, eliminate the need for external databases of allele frequencies, and provide contamination estimates that are more robust to the ancestral origin of the contaminating sample.
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.