↓ Skip to main content

Efficiency of different strategies to mitigate ascertainment bias when using SNP panels in diversity studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficiency of different strategies to mitigate ascertainment bias when using SNP panels in diversity studies
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4416-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorcus Kholofelo Malomane, Christian Reimer, Steffen Weigend, Annett Weigend, Ahmad Reza Sharifi, Henner Simianer

Abstract

Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels have been widely used to study genomic variations within and between populations. Methods of SNP discovery have been a matter of debate for their potential of introducing ascertainment bias, and genetic diversity results obtained from the SNP genotype data can be misleading. We used a total of 42 chicken populations where both individual genotyped array data and pool whole genome resequencing (WGS) data were available. We compared allele frequency distributions and genetic diversity measures (expected heterozygosity (H e ), fixation index (F ST ) values, genetic distances and principal components analysis (PCA)) between the two data types. With the array data, we applied different filtering options (SNPs polymorphic in samples of two Gallus gallus wild populations, linkage disequilibrium (LD) based pruning and minor allele frequency (MAF) filtering, and combinations thereof) to assess their potential to mitigate the ascertainment bias. Rare SNPs were underrepresented in the array data. Array data consistently overestimated H e compared to WGS data, however, with a similar ranking of the breeds, as demonstrated by Spearman's rank correlations ranging between 0.956 and 0.985. LD based pruning resulted in a reduced overestimation of H e compared to the other filters and slightly improved the relationship with the WGS results. The raw array data and those with polymorphic SNPs in the wild samples underestimated pairwise F ST values between breeds which had low F ST (<0.15) in the WGS, and overestimated this parameter for high WGS F ST (>0.15). LD based pruned data underestimated F ST in a consistent manner. The genetic distance matrix from LD pruned data was more closely related to that of WGS than the other array versions. PCA was rather robust in all array versions, since the population structure on the PCA plot was generally well captured in comparison to the WGS data. Among the tested filtering strategies, LD based pruning was found to account for the effects of ascertainment bias in the relatively best way, producing results which are most comparable to those obtained from WGS data and therefore is recommended for practical use.

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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Student > Master 17 17%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 23%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 17 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2023.
All research outputs
#8,577,479
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#3,909
of 11,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,860
of 456,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#85
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 456,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.