↓ Skip to main content

Modeling coverage gaps in haplotype frequencies via Bayesian inference to improve stem cell donor selection

Overview of attention for article published in Immunogenetics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Modeling coverage gaps in haplotype frequencies via Bayesian inference to improve stem cell donor selection
Published in
Immunogenetics, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00251-017-1040-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoram Louzoun, Idan Alter, Loren Gragert, Mark Albrecht, Martin Maiers

Abstract

Regardless of sampling depth, accurate genotype imputation is limited in regions of high polymorphism which often have a heavy-tailed haplotype frequency distribution. Many rare haplotypes are thus unobserved. Statistical methods to improve imputation by extending reference haplotype distributions using linkage disequilibrium patterns that relate allele and haplotype frequencies have not yet been explored. In the field of unrelated stem cell transplantation, imputation of highly polymorphic human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes has an important application in identifying the best-matched stem cell donor when searching large registries totaling over 28,000,000 donors worldwide. Despite these large registry sizes, a significant proportion of searched patients present novel HLA haplotypes. Supporting this observation, HLA population genetic models have indicated that many extant HLA haplotypes remain unobserved. The absent haplotypes are a significant cause of error in haplotype matching. We have applied a Bayesian inference methodology for extending haplotype frequency distributions, using a model where new haplotypes are created by recombination of observed alleles. Applications of this joint probability model offer significant improvement in frequency distribution estimates over the best existing alternative methods, as we illustrate using five-locus HLA frequency data from the National Marrow Donor Program registry. Transplant matching algorithms and disease association studies involving phasing and imputation of rare variants may benefit from this statistical inference framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 44%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 28%
Computer Science 3 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,707
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Immunogenetics
#953
of 1,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,466
of 331,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Immunogenetics
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,203 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.