↓ Skip to main content

Efficiency and Power as a Function of Sequence Coverage, SNP Array Density, and Imputation

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
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 and Power as a Function of Sequence Coverage, SNP Array Density, and Imputation
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002604
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Flannick, Joshua M. Korn, Pierre Fontanillas, George B. Grant, Eric Banks, Mark A. Depristo, David Altshuler

Abstract

High coverage whole genome sequencing provides near complete information about genetic variation. However, other technologies can be more efficient in some settings by (a) reducing redundant coverage within samples and (b) exploiting patterns of genetic variation across samples. To characterize as many samples as possible, many genetic studies therefore employ lower coverage sequencing or SNP array genotyping coupled to statistical imputation. To compare these approaches individually and in conjunction, we developed a statistical framework to estimate genotypes jointly from sequence reads, array intensities, and imputation. In European samples, we find similar sensitivity (89%) and specificity (99.6%) from imputation with either 1× sequencing or 1 M SNP arrays. Sensitivity is increased, particularly for low-frequency polymorphisms (MAF < 5%), when low coverage sequence reads are added to dense genome-wide SNP arrays--the converse, however, is not true. At sites where sequence reads and array intensities produce different sample genotypes, joint analysis reduces genotype errors and identifies novel error modes. Our joint framework informs the use of next-generation sequencing in genome wide association studies and supports development of improved methods for genotype calling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
Netherlands 4 3%
Sweden 2 2%
Ireland 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 99 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Master 7 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 3 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Computer Science 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Mathematics 6 5%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 8 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 July 2012.
All research outputs
#14,551,795
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,980
of 9,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,637
of 178,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#69
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 178,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.