4.7 Article

Comparison of measures of marker informativeness for ancestry and admixture mapping

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-622

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1K01HL103165, MH066181]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Admixture mapping is a powerful gene mapping approach for an admixed population formed from ancestral populations with different allele frequencies. The power of this method relies on the ability of ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to infer ancestry along the chromosomes of admixed individuals. In this study, more than one million SNPs from HapMap databases and simulated data have been interrogated in admixed populations using various measures of ancestry informativeness: Fisher Information Content (FIC), Shannon Information Content (SIC), F statistics (F-ST), Informativeness for Assignment Measure (I-n), and the Absolute Allele Frequency Differences (delta, delta). The objectives are to compare these measures of informativeness to select SNP markers for ancestry inference, and to determine the accuracy of AIM panels selected by each measure in estimating the contributions of the ancestors to the admixed population. Results: F-ST and I-n had the highest Spearman correlation and the best agreement as measured by Kappa statistics based on deciles. Although the different measures of marker informativeness performed comparably well, analyses based on the top 1 to 10% ranked informative markers of simulated data showed that I-n was better in estimating ancestry for an admixed population. Conclusions: Although millions of SNPs have been identified, only a small subset needs to be genotyped in order to accurately predict ancestry with a minimal error rate in a cost-effective manner. In this article, we compared various methods for selecting ancestry informative SNPs using simulations as well as SNP genotype data from samples of admixed populations and showed that the I-n measure estimates ancestry proportion (in an admixed population) with lower bias and mean square error.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据