Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,481

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Automated binning of microsatellite alleles: problems and solutions

AMOS, W., HOFFMAN, J. I., FRODSHAM, A., ZHANG, L., BEST, S., HILL, A. V. S.·2007·Molecular Ecology Notes
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01560.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As genotyping methods move ever closer to full automation, care must be taken to ensure that there is no equivalent rise in allele‐calling error rates. One clear source of error lies with how raw allele lengths are converted into allele classes, a process referred to as binning. Standard automated approaches usually assume collinearity between expected and measured fragment length. Unfortunately, such collinearity is often only approximate, with the consequence that alleles do not conform to a perfect 2‐, 3‐ or 4‐base‐pair periodicity. To account for these problems, we introduce a method that allows repeat units to be fractionally shorter or longer than their theoretical value. Tested on a large human data set, our algorithm performs well over a wide range of dinucleotide repeat loci. The size of the problem caused by sticking to whole numbers of bases is indicated by the fact that the effective repeat length was within 5% of the assumed length only 68.3% of the time.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01560.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
AMOS, W., HOFFMAN, J. I., FRODSHAM, A., ZHANG, L., BEST, S., & HILL, A. V. S.
Venue
Molecular Ecology Notes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-09
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
10-14
ISSN
  • 1471-8278 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-8286
DOI
10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01560.x
OpenAlex
W2133999074
Cited by
1,481
References
0
FWCI
37.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.