4.7 Article

Estimation of haplotype frequencies, linkage-disequilibrium measures, and combination of haplotype copies in each pool by use of pooled DNA data

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 384-398

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/346116

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inference of haplotypes is important for many genetic approaches, including the process of assigning a phenotype to a genetic region. Usually, the population frequencies of haplotypes, as well as the diplotype configuration of each subject, are estimated from a set of genotypes of the subjects in a sample from the population. We have developed an algorithm to infer haplotype frequencies and the combination of haplotype copies in each pool by using pooled DNA data. The input data are the genotypes in pooled DNA samples, each of which contains the quantitative genotype data from one to six subjects. The algorithm infers by the maximum-likelihood method both frequencies of the haplotypes in the population and the combination of haplotype copies in each pool by an expectation-maximization algorithm. The algorithm was implemented in the computer program LDPooled. We also used the bootstrap method to calculate the standard errors of the estimated haplotype frequencies. Using this program, we analyzed the published genotype data for the SAA (n = 156), MTHFR (n = 80), and NAT2 (n = 116) genes, as well as the smoothelin gene (n = 102). Our study has shown that the frequencies of major (frequency >0.1 in a population) haplotypes can be inferred rather accurately from the pooled DNA data by the maximum-likelihood method, although with some limitations. The estimated D and D' values had large variations except when \D\ values were >0.1. The estimated linkage-disequilibrium measure rho(2)for 36 linked loci of the smoothelin gene when one- and two- subject pool protocols were used suggested that the gross pattern of the distribution of the measure can be reproduced using the two-subject pool data.

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

4.7
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