Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 737

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Arabidopsis Example of Association Mapping in Structured Samples

Open access
Zhao, Keyan, Aranzana, María José, Kim, Sung, Lister, Clare, Shindo, Chikako, Tang, Chunlao, Toomajian, Christopher, Zheng, Honggang, Dean, Caroline, Marjoram, Paul, Nordborg, Magnus·2007·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

A potentially serious disadvantage of association mapping is the fact that marker-trait associations may arise from confounding population structure as well as from linkage to causative polymorphisms. Using genome-wide marker data, we have previously demonstrated that the problem can be severe in a global sample of 95 Arabidopsis thaliana accessions, and that established methods for controlling for population structure are generally insufficient. Here, we use the same sample together with a number of flowering-related phenotypes and data-perturbation simulations to evaluate a wider range of methods for controlling for population structure. We find that, in terms of reducing the false-positive rate while maintaining statistical power, a recently introduced mixed-model approach that takes genome-wide differences in relatedness into account via estimated pairwise kinship coefficients generally performs best. By combining the association results with results from linkage mapping in F2 crosses, we identify one previously known true positive and several promising new associations, but also demonstrate the existence of both false positives and false negatives. Our results illustrate the potential of genome-wide association scans as a tool for dissecting the genetics of natural variation, while at the same time highlighting the pitfalls. The importance of study design is clear; our study is severely under-powered both in terms of sample size and marker density. Our results also provide a striking demonstration of confounding by population structure. While statistical methods can be used to ameliorate this problem, they cannot always be effective and are certainly not a substitute for independent evidence, such as that obtained via crosses or transgenic experiments. Ultimately, association mapping is a powerful tool for identifying a list of candidates that is short enough to permit further genetic study.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030004

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 737

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, K., Aranzana, M. J., Kim, S., Lister, C., Shindo, C., Tang, C., Toomajian, C., Zheng, H., Dean, C., Marjoram, P., & Nordborg, M.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2007
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
e4
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W1991189546
Cited by
737
References
8
FWCI
29.14
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: An Arabidopsis Example of Association Mapping in Structured Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030004
The paper
Zhao, K., Aranzana, M. J., Kim, S., Lister, C., Shindo, C., Tang, C., Toomajian, C., Zheng, H., Dean, C., Marjoram, P., & Nordborg, M. (2007). An Arabidopsis Example of Association Mapping in Structured Samples. PLoS Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030004

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.