ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2025
Estimating allele frequencies, ancestry proportions and genotype likelihoods in the presence of mapping bias.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring the change in deleterious mutation burden of barley germplasm conserved over one regeneration cycle.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- The missing data problem in population genomics and statistical methods to address them.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- The genomic footprints of migration: how ancient DNA reveals our history of mobility.Genome biology · 2025Review
- vcfgl: a flexible genotype likelihood simulator for VCF/BCF files.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population genomic analyses rely on an accurate and unbiased characterization of the genetic composition of the studied population. For short-read, high-throughput sequencing data, mapping sequencing reads to a linear reference genome can bias population genetic inference due to mismatches in reads carrying non-reference alleles. In this study, we investigate the impact of mapping bias on allele frequency estimates from pseudohaploid data and genotype likelihoods, 2 approaches commonly used in ultra-low to medium coverage sequencing. To mitigate mapping bias, we propose an empirical adjustment to genotype likelihoods. Using data from the 1000 Genomes Project, we find that our new method improves allele frequency estimation. To test a downstream application, we simulate ancient DNA data with realistic post-mortem damage to compare widely used methods for estimating ancestry proportions under different scenarios, including reference genome selection, population divergence, and sequencing depth. Our findings reveal that mapping bias can lead to differences in estimated admixture proportion of up to 4% depending on the reference population. However, the choice of method has a much stronger impact, with some methods showing differences of 10%. qpAdm appears to perform best at estimating simulated ancestry proportions, but it is sensitive to mapping bias and its applicability may vary across species due to its requirement for additional populations beyond the sources and target population. Our adjusted genotype likelihood approach largely mitigates the effect of mapping bias on genome-wide ancestry estimates from genotype likelihood-based tools. However, it cannot account for the bias introduced by the method itself or the noise in individual site allele frequency estimates due to low sequencing depth. Overall, our study provides valuable insights for obtaining more precise estimates of allele frequencies and ancestry proportions in empirical studies.
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.