Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Analysis of 17 Y-STR loci haplotype and Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution in five Chinese ethnic groups

Wang, Ying, Liu, Chao, Zhang, Chu‐chu, Li, Ran, LI, Yue, Ou, Xue‐ling, Sun, Hong‐yu·2015·ELECTROPHORESIS
DOI 10.1002/elps.201500089
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To investigate genetic diversity in Chinese populations, 706 unrelated male individuals from five ethnic groups (Han, Korean, Hui, Mongolian, and Tibetan, respectively) were analyzed with 17 Y‐chromosomal STRs. The haplotype diversity was 0.99985 in the combined data. A total of 675 distinct haplotypes were observed, of which 649 were unique. Y‐chromosome haplogroups in the five groups were also predicted with Y‐STR haplotypes. Genetic distance between the five studied ethnic groups and other published groups was analyzed by analysis of molecular variance and visualized in a multidimensional scaling plot. In conclusion, the 17 Y‐STR loci are highly polymorphic markers in the five groups and hence are very useful in forensic application, population genetics, and human evolution studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/elps.201500089

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Neuhuber F., 2013, Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 4, e172
  2. 10.1086/421531 · DOI
  3. 10.2144/000114018 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.03.006 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s00414-014-1025-x · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s00414-013-0948-y · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.05.009 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.06.015 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.11.010 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.12.006 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.10.004 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.09.002 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.08.003 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.10.016 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.04.009 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.11.001 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.10.217 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.06.005 · DOI
  20. White A. T., 2005, Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 1, 1
  21. 10.1007/s00414-012-0703-9 · DOI
  22. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000093 · DOI
  23. Whit A. T., 2006, Jounal of Genetic Genealogy, 2, 34
  24. 10.1007/s10038-004-0154-3 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/jhg.2008.2 · DOI
  26. 10.1101/gr.7172008 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Petrejcikova E., 2014, Anthropol Anz, 71, 275, 10.1127/0003-5548/2014/0368 · DOI
  28. Xu H., 2014, Mol Genet Genomics
  29. 10.1016/j.legalmed.2008.08.003 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.11.018 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Liu, C., Zhang, C., Li, R., LI, Y., Ou, X., & Sun, H.
Affiliations
  • Department of Forensic Medicine, Zhongshan School of Medicine Sun Yat‐sen University Guangzhou P. R. China
  • Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Forensic Genetics Guangzhou P. R. China
Venue
ELECTROPHORESIS
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10
Volume
36
Issue
20
Pages
2546-2552
ISSN
  • 0173-0835
  • 1522-2683
DOI
10.1002/elps.201500089
Cited by
9
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 11 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review