Cited by 274Forensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structureRace, Genetics, and Society

A panel of ancestry informative markers for estimating individual biogeographical ancestry and admixture from four continents: utility and applications

Open access
Halder, Indrani, Shriver, Mark, Thomas, Matt, Fernandez, Jose R, Frudakis, Tony·2008·Human Mutation

Abstract

Autosomal ancestry informative markers (AIMs) are useful for inferring individual biogeographical ancestry (I-BGA) and admixture. Ancestry estimates obtained from Y and mtDNA are useful for reconstructing population expansions and migrations in our recent past but individual genomic admixture estimates are useful to test for association of admixture with phenotypes, as covariate in association studies to control for stratification and, in forensics, to estimate certain overt phenotypes from ancestry. We have developed a panel of 176 autosomal AIMs that can effectively distinguish I-BGA and admixture proportions from four continental ancestral populations: Europeans, West Africans, Indigenous Americans, and East Asians. We present allele frequencies for these AIMs in all four ancestral populations and use them to assess the global apportionment of I-BGA and admixture diversity among some extant populations. We observed patterns of apportionment similar to those described previously using sex and autosomal markers, such as European admixture for African Americans (14.3%) and Mexicans (43.2%), European (65.5%) and East Asian affiliation (27%) for South Asians, and low levels of African admixture (2.8-10.8%) mirroring the distribution of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations. Using simulation studies and pedigree analysis we show that I-BGA estimates obtained using this panel and a four-population model has a high degree of precision (average root mean square error [RMSE]=0.026). Using ancestry-phenotype associations we demonstrate that a large and informative AIM panel such as this can help reduce false-positive and false-negative associations between phenotypes and admixture proportions, which may result when using a smaller panel of less informative AIMs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/humu.20695

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • European Americans also have non-European ancestry, including African, Native American, and Asian, though it has been poorly quantified with some discordance among estimates even within studies.

    “Studies have shown that European Americans also have non-European ancestry, including African, Native American, and Asian, though it has been poorly quantified with some discordance among estimates even within studies.29–32”

    From The genetic ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States (2015) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Survey of World Populations Using Individual BGA Estimates (page unavailable) reports that European Americans more frequently showed East Asian, African, and Indigenous American admixture than continental Europeans. The passages do not establish that this ancestry was poorly quantified or that estimates were discordant even within studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halder, I., Shriver, M., Thomas, M., Fernandez, J. R., & Frudakis, T.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Halder, Indrani
Venue
Human Mutation
Published
2008-02-19
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
648-658
ISSN
1059-7794 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006535221
Cited by
274
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Mutation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG015294)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
Keywords
ancestry informative markers, autosomal markers, allele frequency, European ancestry, West African ancestry, Indigenous American ancestry, East Asian ancestry
MeSH terms
Alleles, DNA, Female, Gene Frequency, Genetics, Population, Genotype, Humans, Male, Pedigree, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Population Groups

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