4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of microsatellites, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and composite markers derived from SNPs in linkage analysis

期刊

BMC GENETICS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S29

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41 RR003655, RR03655] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL07567, T32 HL007567] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [U01 DK057292, DK-57292] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIGMS NIH HHS [R37 GM028356, R01 GM028356, GM28356] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing evidence that a map of dense single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can outperform a map of sparse microsatellites for linkage analysis. There is also argument as to whether a clustered SNP map can outperform an evenly spaced SNP map. Using Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data, we compared for linkage analysis microsatellites, SNPs, and composite markers derived from SNPs. We encoded the composite markers in a two-step approach, in which the maximum identity length contrast method was employed to allow for recombination between loci. A SNP map 2.3 times as dense as a microsatellite map (similar to 2.9 cM compared to similar to 6.7 cM apart) provided slightly less information content (similar to 0.83 compared to similar to 0.89). Most inheritance information could be extracted when the SNPs were spaced < 1 cM apart. Comparing the linkage results on using SNPs or composite markers derived from them based on both 3 cM and 0.3 cM resolution maps, we showed that the inter-SNP distance should be kept small (< 1 cM), and that for multipoint linkage analysis the original markers and the derived composite markers had similar power; but for single point linkage analysis the resulting composite markers lead to more power. Considering all factors, such as information content, flexibility of analysis method, map errors, and genotyping errors, a map of clustered SNPs can be an efficient design for a genome-wide linkage scan.

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

4.4
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