4.8 Article

Genotype, haplotype and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations

期刊

NATURE
卷 451, 期 7181, 页码 998-1003

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature06742

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [G0701075] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0701075] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/K01417X/1, G0701075] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NHGRI NIH HHS [T32 HG000040] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide patterns of variation across individuals provide a powerful source of data for uncovering the history of migration, range expansion, and adaptation of the human species. However, high-resolution surveys of variation in genotype, haplotype and copy number have generally focused on a small number of population groups(1-3). Here we report the analysis of high-quality genotypes at 525,910 single-nucleotide polymorphisms ( SNPs) and 396 copy-number-variable loci in a worldwide sample of 29 populations. Analysis of SNP genotypes yields strongly supported fine-scale inferences about population structure. Increasing linkage disequilibrium is observed with increasing geographic distance from Africa, as expected under a serial founder effect for the out-of-Africa spread of human populations. New approaches for haplotype analysis produce inferences about population structure that complement results based on unphased SNPs. Despite a difference from SNPs in the frequency spectrum of the copy-number variants (CNVs) detected-including a comparatively large number of CNVs in previously unexamined populations from Oceania and the Americas-the global distribution of CNVs largely accords with population structure analyses for SNP data sets of similar size. Our results produce new inferences about inter-population variation, support the utility of CNVs in human population-genetic research, and serve as a genomic resource for human-genetic studies in diverse worldwide populations.

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

4.8
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