4.6 Article

Validation of a Small Set of Ancestral Informative Markers for Control of Population Admixture in African Americans

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 587-592

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq401

关键词

African Americans; confounding factors (epidemiology); genetic association studies; genetics; population; molecular epidemiology

资金

  1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, National Cancer Institute [R01CA058420, R01CA098663]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01HD057966]
  3. National Center for Research Resources [U54 RR020278]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Confounding due to population stratification is a potential source of concern in population-based genetic association studies, particularly in recently admixed populations such as African Americans. Several methods have been developed to control for population stratification in the context of genome-wide association studies. Because these approaches require thousands of genotypes from genetic markers, they are not well suited to be used in genetic association analyses without genome-wide data. An alternative approach to control for population stratification is to estimate admixture proportions by using ancestral informative markers (AIMs). The authors evaluated whether a relatively small number of AIMs would be sufficient to estimate ancestral proportions in African Americans. They first estimated European admixture proportions in 1,757 subjects from the Black Women's Health Study (1995-2009) by genotyping an admixture panel of 1,373 AIMs; they then compared these results with those obtained using smaller sets of AIMs. The authors found that just 30 AIMs are needed to obtain very high correlation of estimates with the entire set (r = 0.89; P < 0.0001). A set of 200 AIMs gave an almost perfect correlation with the entire set (r = 0.98; P < 0.0001). These results show that a small number of AIMs are sufficiently precise to estimate European admixture in African Americans.

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