4.6 Article

Genomic and genealogical investigation of the French Canadian founder population structure

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 129, 期 5, 页码 521-531

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-010-0945-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Reseau de Medecine Genetique Appliquee (RMGA) of the Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (FRSQ)
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  3. Fondation de l'Hopital Sainte-Justine
  4. Fondation des Etoiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterizing the genetic structure of worldwide populations is important for understanding human history and is essential to the design and analysis of genetic epidemiological studies. In this study, we examined genetic structure and distant relatedness and their effect on the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) and homozygosity in the founder population of Quebec (Canada). In the French Canadian founder population, such analysis can be performed using both genomic and genealogical data. We investigated genetic differences, extent of LD, and homozygosity in 140 individuals from seven sub-populations of Quebec characterized by different demographic histories reflecting complex founder events. Genetic findings from genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism data were correlated with genealogical information on each of these sub-populations. Our genomic data showed significant population structure and relatedness present in the contemporary Quebec population, also reflected in LD and homozygosity levels. Our extended genealogical data corroborated these findings and indicated that this structure is consistent with the settlement patterns involving several founder events. This provides an independent and complementary validation of genomic-based studies of population structure. Combined genomic and genealogical data in the Quebec founder population provide insights into the effects of the interplay of two important sources of bias in genetic epidemiological studies, unrecognized genetic structure and cryptic relatedness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据