ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessing the impact of post-mortem damage and contamination on imputation performance in ancient DNA.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing archaeogenetic for cancer therapy: bridging ancient DNA insights with modern therapeutic innovations.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Review
- MetaGLIMPSE: Meta-imputation of low-coverage sequencing data for modern and ancient genomes.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- AncientProxy: A catalog of ancient proxies for modern genetic variants.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Recent advances in methods to characterize archaic introgression in modern humans.Genome research · 2026Review
- Dynamic human admixture histories over the past ~1300 years at the northern Himalayan frontier.Science advances · 2025Article
- MetaGLIMPSE: Meta Imputation of Low Coverage Sequencing Data for Modern and Ancient Genomes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The genomic footprints of migration: how ancient DNA reveals our history of mobility.Genome biology · 2025Review
- Benchmarking for genotyping and imputation using degraded DNA for forensic applications across diverse populations.Forensic science international. Genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-coverage imputation is becoming ever more present in ancient DNA (aDNA) studies. Imputation pipelines commonly used for present-day genomes have been shown to yield accurate results when applied to ancient genomes. However, post-mortem damage (PMD), in the form of C-to-T substitutions at the reads termini, and contamination with DNA from closely related species can potentially affect imputation performance in aDNA. In this study, we evaluated imputation performance (i) when using a genotype caller designed for aDNA, ATLAS, compared to bcftools, and (ii) when contamination is present. We evaluated imputation performance with principal component analyses and by calculating imputation error rates. With a particular focus on differently imputed sites, we found that using ATLAS prior to imputation substantially improved imputed genotypes for a very damaged ancient genome (42% PMD). Trimming the ends of the sequencing reads led to similar improvements in imputation accuracy. For the remaining genomes, ATLAS brought limited gains. Finally, to examine the effect of contamination on imputation, we added various amounts of reads from two present-day genomes to a previously downsampled high-coverage ancient genome. We observed that imputation accuracy drastically decreased for contamination rates above 5%. In conclusion, we recommend (i) accounting for PMD by either trimming sequencing reads or using a genotype caller such as ATLAS before imputing highly damaged genomes and (ii) only imputing genomes containing up to 5% of contamination.
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.