CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Biases and reconciliation in estimates of linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Export

Am J Hum Genet, Vol. 78, No. 4. (April 2006), pp. 588-603.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


Roswell Cancer Crosstalk's tags for this article

bias genome linkage-disequilibrium methods primer review

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

Genetic association studies of common disease often rely on linkage disequilibrium (LD) along the human genome and in the population under study. Although understanding the characteristics of this correlation has been the focus of many large-scale surveys (culminating in genomewide haplotype maps), the results of different studies have yielded wide-ranging estimates. Since understanding these differences (and whether they can be reconciled) has important implications for whole-genome association studies, in this article we dissect biases in these estimations that are due to known aspects of study design and analytic methodology. In particular, we document in the empirical data that the long-known complicating effects of allele frequency, marker density, and sample size largely reconcile all large-scale surveys. Two exceptions are an underappraisal of redundancy among single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) when evaluation is limited to short regions (as in candidate-gene resequencing studies) and an inflation in the extent of LD in HapMap phase I, which is likely due to oversampling of specific haplotypes in the creation of the public SNP map. Understanding these factors can guide the understanding of empirical LD surveys and has implications for genetic association studies.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.