ArticlePLoS genetics2024
Simultaneous estimation of genotype error and uncalled deletion rates in whole genome sequence data.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Genotype data include errors that may influence conclusions reached by downstream statistical analyses. Previous studies have estimated genotype error rates from discrepancies in human pedigree data, such as Mendelian inconsistent genotypes or apparent phase violations. However, uncalled deletions, which generally have not been accounted for in these studies, can lead to biased error rate estimates. In this study, we propose a genotype error model that considers both genotype errors and uncalled deletions when calculating the likelihood of the observed genotypes in parent-offspring trios. Using simulations, we show that when there are uncalled deletions, our model produces genotype error rate estimates that are less biased than estimates from a model that does not account for these deletions. We applied our model to SNVs in 77 sequenced White British parent-offspring trios in the UK Biobank. We use the Akaike information criterion to show that our model fits the data better than a model that does not account for uncalled deletions. We estimate the genotype error rate at SNVs with minor allele frequency > 0.001 in these data to be [Formula: see text]. We estimate that 77% of the genotype errors at these markers are attributable to uncalled deletions [Formula: see text].
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.