ArticleGenetics2021
Distinct error rates for reference and nonreference genotypes estimated by pedigree analysis.
Article in Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parameterizing Pantherinae: De Novo Mutation Rate Estimates from Panthera and Neofelis Pedigrees.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Unprecedented female mutation bias in the aye-aye, a highly unusual lemur from Madagascar.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- PidTools: Algorithm and web tools for crop pedigree identification analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Simultaneous estimation of genotype error and uncalled deletion rates in whole genome sequence data.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Understanding Mendelian errors in SNP arrays data using a Gochu Asturcelta pig pedigree: genomic alterations, family size and calling errors.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Examining the Effects of Hibernation on Germline Mutation Rates in Grizzly Bears.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- De novo Mutations in Domestic Cat are Consistent with an Effect of Reproductive Longevity on Both the Rate and Spectrum of Mutations.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Genotype error biases trio-based estimates of haplotype phase accuracy.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- P-smoother: efficient PBWT smoothing of large haplotype panels.Bioinformatics advances · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Errors in genotype calling can have perverse effects on genetic analyses, confounding association studies, and obscuring rare variants. Analyses now routinely incorporate error rates to control for spurious findings. However, reliable estimates of the error rate can be difficult to obtain because of their variance between studies. Most studies also report only a single estimate of the error rate even though genotypes can be miscalled in more than one way. Here, we report a method for estimating the rates at which different types of genotyping errors occur at biallelic loci using pedigree information. Our method identifies potential genotyping errors by exploiting instances where the haplotypic phase has not been faithfully transmitted. The expected frequency of inconsistent phase depends on the combination of genotypes in a pedigree and the probability of miscalling each genotype. We develop a model that uses the differences in these frequencies to estimate rates for different types of genotype error. Simulations show that our method accurately estimates these error rates in a variety of scenarios. We apply this method to a dataset from the whole-genome sequencing of owl monkeys (Aotus nancymaae) in three-generation pedigrees. We find significant differences between estimates for different types of genotyping error, with the most common being homozygous reference sites miscalled as heterozygous and vice versa. The approach we describe is applicable to any set of genotypes where haplotypic phase can reliably be called and should prove useful in helping to control for false discoveries.
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.