↓ Skip to main content

Efficient algorithms for polyploid haplotype phasing

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Efficient algorithms for polyploid haplotype phasing
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4464-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan He, Subrata Saha, Richard Finkers, Laxmi Parida

Abstract

Inference of haplotypes, or the sequence of alleles along the same chromosomes, is a fundamental problem in genetics and is a key component for many analyses including admixture mapping, identifying regions of identity by descent and imputation. Haplotype phasing based on sequencing reads has attracted lots of attentions. Diploid haplotype phasing where the two haplotypes are complimentary have been studied extensively. In this work, we focused on Polyploid haplotype phasing where we aim to phase more than two haplotypes at the same time from sequencing data. The problem is much more complicated as the search space becomes much larger and the haplotypes do not need to be complimentary any more. We proposed two algorithms, (1) Poly-Harsh, a Gibbs Sampling based algorithm which alternatively samples haplotypes and the read assignments to minimize the mismatches between the reads and the phased haplotypes, (2) An efficient algorithm to concatenate haplotype blocks into contiguous haplotypes. Our experiments showed that our method is able to improve the quality of the phased haplotypes over the state-of-the-art methods. To our knowledge, our algorithm for haplotype blocks concatenation is the first algorithm that leverages the shared information across multiple individuals to construct contiguous haplotypes. Our experiments showed that it is both efficient and effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 34%
Computer Science 6 10%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 7 12%
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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,954,835
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#7,615
of 10,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,361
of 327,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#169
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,702 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 327,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.