The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: A comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A central aim for studying runs of homozygosity (ROHs) in genome-wide SNP data is to detect the effects of autozygosity (stretches of the two homologous chromosomes within the same individual that are identical by descent) on phenotypes. However, it is unknown which current ROH detection program, and which set of parameters within a given program, is optimal for differentiating ROHs that are truly autozygous from ROHs that are homozygous at the marker level but vary at unmeasured variants between the markers. METHOD: We simulated 120 Mb of sequence data in order to know the true state of autozygosity. We then extracted common variants from this sequence to mimic the properties of SNP platforms and performed ROH analyses using three popular ROH detection programs, PLINK, GERMLINE, and BEAGLE. We varied detection thresholds for each program (e.g., prior probabilities, lengths of ROHs) to understand their effects on detecting known autozygosity. RESULTS: Within the optimal thresholds for each program, PLINK outperformed GERMLINE and BEAGLE in detecting autozygosity from distant common ancestors. PLINK's sliding window algorithm worked best when using SNP data pruned for linkage disequilibrium (LD). CONCLUSION: Our results provide both general and specific recommendations for maximizing autozygosity detection in genome-wide SNP data, and should apply equally well to research on whole-genome autozygosity burden or to research on whether specific autozygous regions are predictive using association mapping methods.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses.
Purcell, S., Neale, B., Todd-Brown, K., Thomas, L., Ferreira, M. A. R., Bender, D., Maller, J., Sklar, P., de Bakker, P. I. W., Daly, M. J., et al. (2007) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/519795 · Cited by 34,089
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09534 · Cited by 7,877
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 1×
“The discrepancy between definitions of ROHs makes comparisons between study results difficult, and the lack of consensus criteria for defining ROH increases the probability of false positive results due to the potential for choosing the most significant among many ROH thresholds investigated [24].”
BackgroundGenome-wide detection and characterization of positive selection in human populations
The International HapMap Consortium, Sabeti, P. C., Varilly, P., Fry, B., Lohmueller, J., Hostetter, E., Cotsapas, C., Xie, X., Byrne, E. H., McCarroll, S. A., et al. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06250 · Cited by 2,131
Fenner, J. N. (2005) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20188 · Cited by 508
Cited by
A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic denisovan individual
Meyer, M., Kircher, M., Gansauge, M.-T., Li, H., Racimo, F., Mallick, S., Schraiber, J. G., Jay, F., Prüfer, K., de Filippo, C., et al. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1224344 · Cited by 1,967
Runs of homozygosity: windows into population history and trait architecture
Ceballos, F. C., Joshi, P. K., Clark, D. W., Ramsay, M., & Wilson, J. F. (2018) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2017.109 · Cited by 1,006
Genomic and archaeological evidence suggest a dual origin of domestic dogs
Frantz, L. A. F., Mullin, V. E., Pionnier-Capitan, M., Lebrasseur, O., Ollivier, M., Perri, A., Linderholm, A., Mattiangeli, V., Teasdale, M. D., Dimopoulos, E. A., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf3161 · Cited by 430
Bjelland, D. W., Weigel, K. A., Vukasinovic, N., & Nkrumah, J. D. (2013) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6435 · Cited by 300
Complex Patterns of Admixture across the Indonesian Archipelago
Hudjashov, G., Karafet, T. M., Lawson, D. J., Downey, S., Savina, O., Sudoyo, H., Lansing, J. S., Hammer, M. F., & Cox, M. P. (2017) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msx196 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Howrigan, D. P., Simonson, M. A., & Keller, M. C.
- Venue
- BMC Genomics
- Published
- 2011-09-23
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 460-460
- ISSN
- 1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029395646
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: A comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2164-12-460
- The paper
- Howrigan, D. P., Simonson, M. A., & Keller, M. C. (2011). Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: A comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms. BMC Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-460
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.